Orioles avoided arbitration with... (leave some very big differences as well)

[fearthenoodle]

How much more?

I don't see any reason to approach a multi-year deal for less than 3 years. So I'd start there. Probably something in the 3/13-15 range and maybe even slightly more. Structured $3MM/$5MM/$7MM or something along those lines. I disagree that he hasn't proved he belongs in the majors at this point.

Even with substantial regression, he still projects as a 2-3 WAR player in 2015 for us. Getting him on those terms would be a huge steal, and even in a worst-case scenario, you aren't hamstrung financially by any of those salaries.

[weams]

I don't see any reason to approach a multi-year deal for less than 3 years. So I'd start there. Probably something in the 3/13-15 range and maybe even slightly more. Structured $3MM/$5MM/$7MM or something along those lines. I disagree that he hasn't proved he belongs in the majors at this point.

Even with substantial regression, he still projects as a 2-3 WAR player in 2015 for us. Getting him on those terms would be a huge steal, and even in a worst-case scenario, you aren't hamstrung financially by any of those salaries.

But you would be committed. Even if he becomes Steve Pearce again. Just like those who think Ubaldo won't start for the next two years at least. Steve Pearce would play, or nurse his sore wrists.

[Mayor McCheese]

I don't see any reason to approach a multi-year deal for less than 3 years. So I'd start there. Probably something in the 3/13-15 range and maybe even slightly more. Structured $3MM/$5MM/$7MM or something along those lines. I disagree that he hasn't proved he belongs in the majors at this point.

Even with substantial regression, he still projects as a 2-3 WAR player in 2015 for us. Getting him on those terms would be a huge steal, and even in a worst-case scenario, you aren't hamstrung financially by any of those salaries.

Over 8 years he has about 2/3rds of just ONE season with good numbers.

I am confused of why so many people are just wanting to commit to him especially now that teams have 300+ AB's from last year to study on him.

Oh yeah and his baby wrists flare up every 2 months.

Thanks for all you did in 2014 though.

[Can_of_corn]

Over 8 years he has about 2/3rds of just ONE season with good numbers.

I am confused of why so many people are just wanting to commit to him especially now that teams have 300+ AB's from last year to study on him.

Oh yeah and his baby wrists flare up every 2 months.

Thanks for all you did in 2014 though.

Pearce produced the highest isolated slugging in baseball on pitches in the upper third of the zone, a whopping .607 ISO. If we expand to include those pitches thrown about the strike zone, Pearce still ranks fourth.

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/assessing-steve-pearces-breakout/

[fearthenoodle]

But you would be committed. Even if he becomes Steve Pearce again. Just like those who think Ubaldo won't start for the next two years at least. Steve Pearce would play, or nurse his sore wrists.

At some point you have to make some small commitments, and as risks go, his is pretty minimal when all factors are considered. Right now you are looking at a 2016 roster with zero corner OFs, no 1B, no C, no DH and no bench outfielders beyond Lough (and yes, maybe Lough earns a bigger role).

There is always going to be some level of risk when you make a commitment.

[Frobby]

I don't see any reason to approach a multi-year deal for less than 3 years. So I'd start there. Probably something in the 3/13-15 range and maybe even slightly more. Structured $3MM/$5MM/$7MM or something along those lines. I disagree that he hasn't proved he belongs in the majors at this point.

Even with substantial regression, he still projects as a 2-3 WAR player in 2015 for us. Getting him on those terms would be a huge steal, and even in a worst-case scenario, you aren't hamstrung financially by any of those salaries.

First of all, he's going to make whatever he makes for 2015. It's how much value he'll have after 2015 that decides whether we should try to lock him down in a multi-year deal. You're talking about a guy who will be 33 years old by 2016, and who has had one season in his career where he has been worth more than 0.5 rWAR. In fact, his career total prior to 2014 was 0.6 rWAR. So, while paying Pearce a total of $12 mm in 2016-17 could be a bargain, it seems to me a pretty risky proposition based on one good 383 PA season. I'll grant you, if he has a solid season in 2015, he could be looking at 2/$16 mm or more in 2016-17 (see Michael Morse, who isn't as good defensively as Pearce).

[fearthenoodle]

I'll grant you, if he has a solid season in 2015, he could be looking at 2/$16 mm or more in 2016-17 (see Michael Morse, who isn't as good defensively as Pearce).

Well, that's the risk. If Pearce has a good, not great season, he's still going to cash in at much more than 2/12 in free agency. I don't think it makes sense to dismiss his 2015 salary, either. The gap in his arbitration case is significant, and locking him in below the midpoint and fairly close to your original offer potentially saves $2.5MM in 2015. I don't *know* that he would win his arbitration case, and I would never bet on it with Angelos/Smouse on the other side, but he has some very good numbers in categories that the arbitrators focus on like HRs and AVG and OPS.

[TonySoprano]

The Orioles faced the unenviable task of resolving contracts with 11 arbitration-eligible players, but have now signed all but one of those players.

So, what’s been the cost? The Orioles will give between $21,556,000 and $22,206,000 in raises to those players, depending on the resolution of the contract of outfielder Alejandro De Aza.

source - Baltimore Sun

[weams]

Neil Walker, who had filed at $9MM as opposed to the club’s $8MM figure, lost today to the club today.

[webbrick2010]

Can anyone explain the De'Aza situation

I have heard the DD file to go statement, but I don't understand why De'Aza was singled out for this treatment?

We're talking a few hundred thousand dollars win or lose the arb case.

This organization is befuddling. We give Brian Matusz a 3.2 million dollar contract when based on merit he probably isn't good enough to make the bullpen, yet we single out our supposed starting LF'er and lead off hitter for a confrontation over a couple 100K.

Perhaps there is a reasonable explanation, and if you know it please pass it along

[Can_of_corn]

Can anyone explain the De'Aza situation

I have heard the DD file to go statement, but I don't understand why De'Aza was singled out for this treatment?

We're talking a few hundred thousand dollars win or lose the arb case.

This organization is befuddling. We give Brian Matusz a 3.2 million dollar contract when based on merit he probably isn't good enough to make the bullpen, yet we single out our supposed starting LF'er and lead off hitter for a confrontation over a couple 100K.

Perhaps there is a reasonable explanation, and if you know it please pass it along

Maybe his side isn't willing to come down?

[webbrick2010]

Maybe his side isn't willing to come down?

From what I read the O's are not even open to negotiating the mid point that every other player received.

Why not with De'Aza??

I don't get it, and haven't heard an explanation. He had one of the smallest gaps

[mdbdotcom]

From what I read the O's are not even open to negotiating the mid point that every other player received.

Why not with De'Aza??

I don't get it, and haven't heard an explanation. He had one of the smallest gaps

Maybe it's none of our business.

[MdSooner]

Neil Walker, who had filed at $9MM as opposed to the club?s $8MM figure, lost today to the club today.

From my faulty memory, even when the teams win the arb case - the player still gets a raise.

Not what they wanted but do get a raise.

So when the stats come out that teams win this % of the time and the players win this % of the time is misleading.

[Can_of_corn]

From my faulty memory, even when the teams win the arb case - the player still gets a raise.

Not what they wanted but do get a raise.

So when the stats come out that teams win this % of the time and the players win this % of the time is misleading.

Technically speaking a team can submit a number that represents up to a 10% pay cut. I do not know of any such cases going to arbitration.