Arbitration demands and offers to be exchanged next Friday (1/12)

[Frobby]

32 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

 

Holliday would be if they brought him up from day 1 and he stays up.

???  That makes no sense.  If he’s up from day one, he gets a full year of service, so he won’t be a Super 2.

[Sports Guy]

2 minutes ago, Frobby said:

???  That makes no sense.  If he’s up from day one, he gets a full year of service, so he won’t be a Super 2.

Yea I’m sorry.  I wasn’t thinking when I said that.  I was combining 2 thoughts in my head.

I had noticed that about Bradish and GRod when I was looking into things.  They all get pricey fast if they keep up the same/similar trajectory but I still would rather go with year to year with them rather than give out some big long term deal, at least for now.

[ThisIsBirdland]

 

[interloper]

Is that everyone now?

[emmett16]

8 minutes ago, ThisIsBirdland said:

 

They really like that move.  I think I heard talk of MLB not allowing that in the future.  

[interloper]

3 minutes ago, emmett16 said:

They really like that move.  I think I heard talk of MLB not allowing that in the future.  

Elias even mentioned it as basically the only way the club will avoid arb after filing figures. Not sure it's necessarily his directive, but who knows. 

Edited February 14 by interloper

[86this]

3 minutes ago, emmett16 said:

They really like that move.  I think I heard talk of MLB not allowing that in the future.  

Not allowing the option in the future?

[Just Regular]

Find somebody to love you like Mike Elias loves a Club option.

[ThisIsBirdland]

I love club options, but I don't think there's any way in hell he's back next year at $7.5m. Something will have to have gone spectacularly wrong with Kjerstad's development. 

[Frobby]

1 hour ago, interloper said:

Elias even mentioned it as basically the only way the club will avoid arb after filing figures. Not sure it's necessarily his directive, but who knows. 

I don’t think Elias said that.  Roch did.  It’s BS.  

[interloper]

11 minutes ago, Frobby said:

I don’t think Elias said that.  Roch did.  It’s BS.  

No, Elias said it in an interview recently. I don't have the time to go look for it, but it was during one of his recent offseason interviews. Heard it with me own ears! 

EDIT: Here's one. 

Around 14:30 is when he gets asked about arbitration stuff. The quote I was thinking of is probably this: "We're file to go, which means we won't settle cases on a 1-year deal". And sure enough, pretty much all of the deals after the file date have included options. 

Edited February 14 by interloper

[Frobby]

9 minutes ago, interloper said:

No, Elias said it in an interview recently. I don't have the time to go look for it, but it was during one of his recent offseason interviews. Heard it with me own ears! 

EDIT: Here's one. 

Around 14:30 is when he gets asked about arbitration stuff. The quote I was thinking of is probably this: "We're file to go, which means we won't settle cases on a 1-year deal". And sure enough, pretty much all of the deals after the file date have included options. 

Thanks for this.  I stand corrected that he’s never said it.  I went back and looked, and it’s true that in the Elias era every settlement reached after figures formally were exchanged included an option.  It’s actually a pretty clever “out.”  

[ChosenOne21]

2 hours ago, emmett16 said:

They really like that move.  I think I heard talk of MLB not allowing that in the future.  

I'm guessing they don't like that it removes the contract from being used in future arbitration decisions? The simple fix would be to allow club options, but once the players and clubs have exchanged figures, any contract with only one year guaranteed counts for future decisions.

The players probably won't like that, or any rule, that limits their negotiating options.

[Warehouse]

1 hour ago, ChosenOne21 said:

I'm guessing they don't like that it removes the contract from being used in future arbitration decisions? The simple fix would be to allow club options, but once the players and clubs have exchanged figures, any contract with only one year guaranteed counts for future decisions.

The players probably won't like that, or any rule, that limits their negotiating options.

Why would MLB care?  They put pressure on clubs to apply a file-or-trial policy in order to minimize salary inflation.  The concern is that clubs and players will “split the difference” after exchanging numbers and then players will be more aggressive in negotiations prior to exchanging numbers and then higher settlements will result in higher benchmarks and so on.  

Settlements that include options are not eligible to be used as benchmarks so they have no effect at all on salary inflation.

[wildcard]

Having two years of control  of O'Hearn helps his trade value.