Will There Be Any Arbitration Surprises For the Royals?
by Freneau on Dec 1, 2009 9:08 AM EST
in Kansas City Royals News
Email
PrintWill the Royals surprise us with any unexpected arbitration decisions today?
Most of the speculation centers around Miguel Olivo and Coco Crisp. You have to figure Olivo is gone, while Crisp is a little more difficulot to figure out. It isn't clear Crisp would accept arbitration if offered, and it isn't clear (at least to me) what his salary level would be.
I have a feeling we're going to see something a little zany today. Somebody we expect to be offered won't, or vice versa. No basis for this, other than a growing feeling that I really don't have a handle on Dayton Moore anymore.
67 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
For the lazy among us
Anyone have a list of the arb-eligible players?
FYI
Just so you’ll know, today’s deadline is only about offering arbitration to FA’s, I believe. This isn’t the deadline for offering arbitration to arb. eligible players still under team control (those on CentralChamps2009’s list below).
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Dec 1, 2009 10:16 AM EST up reply actions
Yah sure.
Olivo, Coco Crisp, Jamey Wright, and Bruce Chen have to be offered or not offered today.
Go Royals!
The full list
Of arb. eligible from COTS (the number is service time)
John Bale lhp 4.016
Brian Bannister rhp 3.158
John Buck c 5.101
Roman Colon rhp 3.133
Kyle Davies rhp 4.012
Alex Gordon 3b 2.162*
Mike Jacobs dh-1b 4.047
Robinson Tejeda rhp 3.102
If you look closely, it really says "CentralChamps2012."
by CentralChamps2009 on Dec 1, 2009 10:14 AM EST reply actions
This is obviously a different list
than the arbitration-eligible free agent list, which is apparently the only thing at issue today. But here’s the other list for your future consideration.
If you look closely, it really says "CentralChamps2012."
by CentralChamps2009 on Dec 1, 2009 10:17 AM EST up reply actions
Like NY said above as I was typing this
If you look closely, it really says "CentralChamps2012."
by CentralChamps2009 on Dec 1, 2009 10:18 AM EST up reply actions
The future
appears to be December 12, the last day to offer contracts to the remaining unsigned, and a far more interesting day for this roster.
If you look closely, it really says "CentralChamps2012."
by CentralChamps2009 on Dec 1, 2009 10:22 AM EST up reply actions
I suspect with many of these guys they'll offer or make deals (or both)
sooner rather than right before the deadline
we usually see arb-offers, then a deal we’ll get done, before going to arb
Free-Agent Arbitration Offer Deadline Day is like Christmas, Thanksgiving and Halloween rolled up into one
But seriously, I don’t think it matters much but I wouldn’t mind the Royals offering arbitration to Crisp. Given his lack of playing time due to injuries (and therefore his poor counting stats), I don’t think he’d make a whole lot in arbitration. And then, if magically healthy in the summer, the Royals could flip him for something. Of course, I think this is moot because I doubt Crisp would accept arbitration, as I think he’d likely make more money on the FA market.
The immoderate moderator
No rule for Free Agents
Only for club control players.
by Gopherballs on Dec 1, 2009 12:22 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
I'm assuming then
That there is no compensation for losing a FA that you offered Arb to? Otherwise, why wouldn’t everyone just offer a completely BS lowball deal to all the Arb eligible FA’s to get the compensation?
BOOM! ROASTED!
Because once you offer arbitration and the player accepts the player is yours ...
In the arbitration process each side submits and offer and the arbiter pricks either the player’s submittal or the team’s submittal. If the team submits a ridiculously low offer, the teams ends up paying the player what the player submits to the arbiter.
by Steve Nelson on Dec 2, 2009 10:33 AM EST up reply actions
The secret deal with Olivo conspiracy thoery strikes me as possible.
Wouldn’t be totally surprised if he gets offered arbitration.
Go Royals!
Perhaps
It is possible, but I really doubt Olivo agreed to a deal for less than his option. I think he can get more than that on the FA market. He hits well for a catcher and I’m sure some like his defense and/or game calling skills.
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Dec 1, 2009 10:21 AM EST up reply actions
well, I was refering to the Royals buying him out so that he would....
decline arbitration when they offered him so the Royals would be in line for a sandwich pick.
Go Royals!
Question
What’s the 40-man roster timing on these decisions? If someone is offered and accepts (which they must do by the first day of winter meetings), how quickly do they have to be added to the roster? If it’s quickly, I’d assume that the fact that the Royals have no current open spots on the 40-man is a sign that they’re not offering anyone arbitration today.
If you look closely, it really says "CentralChamps2012."
by CentralChamps2009 on Dec 1, 2009 10:25 AM EST reply actions
I could be wrong
But I don’t think Coco is a type A/B free agent, which would mean that the royals don’t really have any incentive to offer him arbitration.
Other than there will be some competition for his services
And if he were to accept Arb, he could possibly make more than a free agent deal, and we get to keep him. He wouldn’t bother me either way I guess.
Whatever the dumbest possible scenario is
I will count on Dayton taking that road.
Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com
i'm deathly afraid that'll be true
my only hope is that someone gets injured, and a team comes looking for a backup at the start of next year.. then we have to hope dayton will let him go.
I also fear this
because I have understood so few of his moves previously.
"Things could always be worse." - Buddy Bell
Well... that move is not as dumb as it sounds.
You could cut him and pay him 1/6th of his salary, So if you feel that there is a good chance that he will decline and go for free agency, that could balance well against the risk of the 800k or so verses getting a pick worth about 4 million.
Go Royals!
If he accepts then you can non tender Buck and stay with Olivo vs..
wasting the 800k. You could also possibly trade him for his arbitration salary and be in the same position that you would have been if you did not offer arbitration.
Go Royals!
Actually, yeah.
It doesn’t sound like such a bad idea after all…
It may not be that simple ...
… if the Players Association believes the cut was made solely to avoid paying the player, they can file a grievance and have it arbitrated. If the arbitrator agrees, the player gets his money.
By offering arbitration the team is saying, in essence, we think this player is good enough to be on our roster. If the team then cuts the player in spring training, it’s pretty hard for them to then claim that the player was cut because his skills weren’t good enough.
by Steve Nelson on Dec 1, 2009 3:11 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Especially true because
He was the evryday guy last year, was superficially good and would be cut in favor of Buck/Pena, who the Royals preferred him too last year. Difficult to justify that kind of huge turnaround.
not really...
we decided we did not have the money to keep the contract after deciding to keep some other arbitration eligible players…
Arbitration is not guarenteed, thats why players get to keep 1/6th of it even if they don’t play. The numbers say you offer arbitration unless your about 80% sure or more that Olivo will accept, maybe they were that sure, but I am guessing they thought it was 50-50 and they have no concept of odds.
Go Royals!
That argument won't fly ...
… you can’t terminate a contract for financial reasons. The fact that you decided to keep some other arb eligible guys instead is not sufficient.
The argument you have to make is that the release was skills related. The Padres got away with terminating Todd Walker’s contract because they acquired Giles, clearly a better option.
But with Olivo they would have to bring in someone better – and if it’s a free agent it would probably have to be someone with an appreciably higher Elias ranking.
I frankly, can’t see a scenario where Olivo doesn’t have an extremely strong case.
Jacobs
It should be a fireable offense, but I could see it happening. “We gotta get some slug!”
He's not until the second batch
I'm not a sabermetrician, but I do play one at FanGraphs.
Can't get enough of me? Check out my Twitter feed.
by Matt Klaassen on Dec 1, 2009 2:15 PM EST up reply actions
Offering arbitration to Bruce Chen would be the worst moves I think.
Followed by Arbitration to Jamey Wright
Go Royals!
Royals fail to offer arb to Olivo
http://twitter.com/Royals_Report/status/6243755167
Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com
so DM thought
that Olivo would pick up his half of the mutual option. They buy him out. And then he thinks that Olivo would accept arb. DM throws the comp pick away. So basically, DM wanted to make sure that Olivo never came back to the K as a Royal. To the tune of a buyout and a compensation pick. Awesome.
Don't Stop Believing!
Yah, sure looked like Dayton was getting the right odds to call, but we have to..
trust the process.
Go Royals!
It's likely that had Olivo accepted arb he would have gotten $3 million - maybe more ...
… and I think that if I were advising Olivo I would tell him to accept arby – I don’t think he would get nearly that much on the FA market.
If you go along with that analysis, then the options are:
1. Pay Olivo $3 million and have him on the roster.
2. Pay Olivo $3 million and not have him on the roster.
3. Don’t pay Olivo $3 million and don’t have him on the roster.
I can’t fault Dayton taking Door #3. There is no lost comp pick because there was little to no chance that Olivo would decline arb.
Really, though, this is just the last piece of crap remaining from a contract that was a total POS the moment it was signed.
Yes, Moore did the safe, smart thing here
Dayton Moore is a poor GM, but that doesn’t mean we should pretend that every move he makes (or fails to make) is the most stupid possible move. It is what it is. But I guess fans like extremes.
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Dec 1, 2009 9:20 PM EST up reply actions
I don't think this is the most stupid possible move
I haven’t agreed with a lot of DM’s recent moves, but I’ve defended his overall trade history in other threads. I just don’t feel that Olivo wanted to be here. Why would he? So I don’t think offering arb would be a risk, especially after we already bought him out. That pretty clearly shows we don’t want him around. And realistically, what’s the harm if he accepts? We buy him out at 1/6th? Worst case is we play him at $3M, which is probably what DM is going to pay for a FA catcher anyway. Now, I think he needs to be gone, and I think he would have been. So I think that not offering arb was a mistake at the cost of a comp pick.
Don't Stop Believing!
I just don’t feel that Olivo wanted to be here.
That’s very speculative. Olivo and his agent might come to the conclusion that the kind of raise (which he would definitely get) in arbitration might be a bigger number than what he can get on the FA market with a down economy. Last year lots of lesser FA’s went unsigned into late winter and early spring and had to end up taking less money. Maybe he doesn’t want to risk being in that boat. The risk is real and neither of us knows the true magnitude of that risk.
And realistically, what’s the harm if he accepts? We buy him out at 1/6th? Worst case is we play him at $3M, which is probably what DM is going to pay for a FA catcher anyway.
More than $3M. With his counting stats, he would have received a raise in arbitration. So the Royals would have had to pay over $3M for a catcher who, quite frankly, sucks.
So I think that not offering arb was a mistake at the cost of a comp pick.
You would have rolled the dice. Thankfully Moore didn’t. We shouldn’t want Olivo here. We shouldn’t want to pay him to play here. Moore did what was necessary to make sure this doesn’t happen.
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Dec 2, 2009 11:23 AM EST up reply actions
I agree it is speculative on my part,
but you’re speculating he would accept. Olivo has made it clear he wants to be a starter, and buying him out sends him the message (hell, just tell him flat out) that he’s not going to be a starter here. And if he accepted, we’d only be on the hook for 1/6th if we cut him. So his low buyout became a little bigger buyout. Big deal. The comp pick could net us another Montgomery. And, while I agree that Olivo wasn’t a world beater, he ended up with a 103 OPS+. Average. His D was terrible. He ended up as a Type B FA. So, there’s a lot worse out there. I think he’ll get picked up somewhere. I haven’t agreed and have agreed with some of Moore’s moves. I just don’t think this would have been a huge gamble, and he eliminated all possibility of the gamble backfiring. Whatever. I guess that’s fine if he had some inside knowledge. I just disagree on the level of risk the offer would have carried in light of the benefit of a rejected offer.
Don't Stop Believing!
We have a top of the 2nd pick this year
Which we didn’t last year. Plus taking prospects isn’t exactly the most difficult thing. You can normally sign good guys in later rounds by paying above slot signing bonuses and we could use that combo of cash to sign a top 10 Latin American player again this year.
No need to essentially pay for a compensatory pick.
by AlanSimpson on Dec 2, 2009 8:29 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
but you’re speculating he would accept.
No, I’m saying there’s a risk. And I think the risk-benefit analysis says don’t roll the dice on this one.
Olivo has made it clear he wants to be a starter, and buying him out sends him the message (hell, just tell him flat out) that he’s not going to be a starter here
Given that the Royals are likely going to non-tender Buck and that his only competition might be B. Pena, he’d still have a good chance at starting.
And if he accepted, we’d only be on the hook for 1/6th if we cut him.
With the significant risk of a grievance then being filed on Olivo’s behalf and an arbitrator possibly ruling in Olivo’s favor, and getting him the money.
And, while I agree that Olivo wasn’t a world beater, he ended up with a 103 OPS+. Average.
Guys like Olivo show why OPS and OPS+ are inferior stats. His OPS was fairly high on SLG and very low on OBP. That’s why his wOBA wasn’t very good. Long story short, he didn’t hit very well in 2009 and shouldn’t be expect to hit well in the future. And don’t use the fact that he’s a Type B as support for the argument that he’s a decent catcher. Those FA type classifications are widely recognized to be a joke. They use an foolish formula of old school stats.
I just disagree on the level of risk the offer would have carried in light of the benefit of a rejected offer.
That’s fine. I can understand someone going that route, just as I can understand a GM choosing to go the safer route. It just seemed like you were portraying this decision by Moore as an obvious screw up. I don’t think that is a fair or accurate characterization.
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Dec 3, 2009 1:25 AM EST up reply actions
I don't think you can cut him for only 1/6th of salary
And if he accepted, we’d only be on the hook for 1/6th if we cut him. So his low buyout became a little bigger buyout.
You can’t cut a player simply because you want to and avoid paying salary. The only acceptable reason for cutting a player and terminating the contract is for lack of talent. That’s a tricky issue after offering arbitration, because by offering arbitration you’ve said that the guy is talented enough to be on your roster.
The primary precedent is when the Padres cut Todd Walker after Walker won his arb case. But in that cast the Padres acquired Giles, who was clearly a better option.
With regard to Olivo, he was ranked as a Type B by Elias. For better or worse, the owners and MLBPA have negotiated Elias rankings as the standard for evaluating players. It would be very difficult for the Royals to argue in front of an arbiter, in a proceeding governed by the bargaining agreement, that the player ranking system negotiated in the bargaining agreement should not be used to assess value.
The point of the preceding paragraph is that unless the Royals bring in a catcher who has a higher Elias ranking than Olivo, it will be difficult for them to argue in front of an arbiter that Olivo was released because they had a more talented alternative available.
It’s been my view that if the Royals offered arb to Olivo, he would be stupid not to accept. So the assumption should be that offering arb is tantamount to taking him back on the roster at an arb set salary of at least $3 million. If that’’s not desirable you don’t offer arb and say goodbye. Losing a draft pick isn’t really a consideration, because the presumes that Olivo declines arb, which I don’t believe he is likely to do.
by Steve Nelson on Dec 4, 2009 12:20 AM EST up reply actions
Ok, but a few more things...
1. Olivo could be traded instead of cut if the Royals would eat part of his salary.
2. Olivo was worth that much money by WAR standards.
3. Olivo has the talent to be a 3-4 WAR player, he just needs to take walks and block pitches better.
4. If we keep Buck now, basically we are spending the money saved on him. Keeping Olivo meant that Buck was gone. The Royals may not save much money at all.
5. The odds say you offer and see what happens. Four million draft pick vs a 5 million arbitration when the player was worth 5 million according to WAR even with Olivo’s defense, means you offer.
Go Royals!
A few more things that you cant see with numbers.
1. Zack likes to pitch to Olvio and things he calls an excellent game, how much is that worth?
2. How many oft he passballs are the pitchers fault? Are some of them crossing up the signs a lot? Since all our catchers have the same problem, it might not all be on Olivo for all the passballs.
3. Olivo was bad at throwing out baserunners this year, but when Aviles was at short his numbers were much better, I saw many really bad tags that should have been outs.
4. Olivo was most likely a 2 WAR player last year, all things considered, worth about 8 million, I never got the hate for him.
Go Royals!
Olivo is a 2 WAR player because there is no defensive adjustment for catchers
- Zack likes to pitch to Olivo? Come on, who’s gonna say anything bad about one of their teammates.
- Passed Balls by definition are not the pitcher’s fault, though I see your point. But Olivo has had issues with that for a while now.
- I would expect a rebound in Olivo’s CS% since the people covering the bag looked horrible doing it.
- Sure Olivo was a 2 WAR player, without defensive adjustment, he sure was 2 wins above replacement with the bat at catcher after having a career year. Asking him to learn to walk more is like asking TPJ to learn how to hit.
I’d like to know where his “setting up for a play at the plate by standing 5 feet in front of it” comes into play for you. He’s terrible. End of story.
Is it a sign of growth on DM's part that Olivo was allowed to walk?
I mean, after he actually has a good season at the plate, did his defense overshadow things enough to make DM want him out? And what the hell was Dayton watching in past years?
Defense
In the press conference where they got Getz and Fields, Moore was pretty explicit in saying that they had made mistakes (as much as you can expect from someone in his position), that they tried to patch the roster and failed, and that they needed to focus on improving the defense. The number of passed balls and wild pitches allowed was an example that he discussed. It seems clear that moving Callaspo around fits with this plan.
They may not be able to do something with Guillen, but I get he ends up as a DH and Moore tries to find a guy that can play center/right through trade or FA. The Angel Pagan rumors make a lot of sense from our perspective. They could also try to put Fields in that position, perhaps platooning him with Guillen depending on the pitching matchup.
Personally, this offseason has been pretty good from a fan perspective, given some of the limitations. Lots of depth signings and a trade of an expensive player with league average hitting for two cheap ones with some upside.
If Moore's philosophy
Is to buy mediocre hitting, high defense guys this offseason, then that could be a really good plan moving forward.
Only question is…does he really know how to evaluate defensive skills?
Not if he thinks Josh Fields offers any sort of defensive upgrade
And Chris Getz isn’t exactly Frank White out there. Or even Mark Grudzelaniak. Small sample size for UZR, but he fans had him below average.
I'm not a sabermetrician, but I do play one at FanGraphs.
Can't get enough of me? Check out my Twitter feed.
by Matt Klaassen on Dec 2, 2009 12:10 PM EST up reply actions
I'm worried about crippling the offense in an attempt to patch the D
The number of runs scored has gotten lower every year during Moore’s tenure. If he replaces Callaspo and Buck/Olivo with slightly better D/much worse O, we’ll end up being worse off.
Unless I'm wrong...
My Twitter feed
Good call
We’re not in a place where we can trade away good bats. We have to find a way to use them as much as possible in the lineup without killing defense.
Maybe no Callaspo for Hochevar starts would be a good place to begin…
Can it get any worse than last year
Oh wait- I’ll check my Buddy Bell quote a day calendar. Never mind ;)
The issue isn't crippling the offense
The goal is to score more runs that you surrender.
You can live with a loss of 20 runs produced if the change results in 40 fewer runs surrendered.
You can have a GM like Bavasi, who that the number one priority is to improve one specific component , while discounting the offsetting losses. That leads to decisions such as declining to use Raul Ibañez as a DH despite his defensive limitations. Or acquring Jose Vidro because the team needs a #2 hitter, without considering how punting slugging in the DH slot affects the overall offensive production.
Or you can have a GM like Zduriencik who says that what matters it the net gain.
What’s damning about the Royals is not that runs scored has gotten lower each year; it’s that the difference between runs scored and runs allowed has gotten larger each year. Not only has the offense gone in the tank but the defense has gotten worse at the same time. Here are the differentials:
2007: 72
2008: 90
2009: 156
Isn’t that what one would expect from a team that percieives Yuniesky Betancourt as a significant asset?
by Steve Nelson on Dec 4, 2009 12:37 AM EST up reply actions
I'd like to know how that's even possible with Bannister and Greinke both having better years in 2009...
The offense is really that bad huh? Wow…
No - it's that team defense has cratered ....
runs scored:
2009: 686
2008: 691
2007: 706
Net: -20
runs allowed:
2009: 842
2008: 781
2007: 778
Net: -66
With Bannister and Greinke having banner years, ...
… that means that run prevention has been even more atrocious than suggested by the numbers.
And think about it. If a front office is so out of tune that it truly believes that Yuniesky Betancourt is a significant defensive upgrade, should anyone be surprised that runs allowed tanks while the front office believes they are actually a better defensive team?
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- Weatherman Derek Holland does Dallas TV
- Ask Alex: Will Julio Teheran or Matt Moore win rookie of the year?
- Ku Klux Klan, umpires and bowling: Why the minor leagues tossed out Jim Evans academy
- The Cardinals Hall of Fame can now be found at Bill Clinton’s library in Arkansas (Huh?)
- Will Bryce Harper start the season with the Nationals?
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
