Moneyball Baseball League Chat

In a press release to the Guardian newspaper, Charlottetown Knights GM Randy "OMS" Smith announced the trade of star third baseman Gio Urshela to the Halifax Hurricanes in exchange for versatile utility man Chris Taylor and the Hurricanes 3rd round pick in the 2020 prospect draft. " It's never easy parting with a player with Urshela's talent but sometimes the financial realities of running a major league team in a small market area force your hand", Smith was quoted as saying. "If we are to be a player in next summer's free agency, we had to free up some cap space and with this deal we were able to do that and get a pitching prospect for the future as well" Smith added. It was well known in MLB circles that Urshela was not happy in his role as DH and backup to 3B stalwart Anthony Rendon and was unlikely to come to terms with the Knights. In Halifax, Urshela has a team and city with the financial wherewithal to offer Urshela a multi year contract. The move will also enable Charlottetown to slot Dominic Smith Jr. into the DH spot where his defensive liabilities in left field will not be a problem.

Can someone help clarify arbitration rule/example IX.13 d(ii)?

It says that if Anderson is taken to arbitration, that the owner would have to pay the year 4 salary (2M) or the Strat card, whichever is greater. But then goes on to say that if his card were 1.85 mil, the owner won arbitration and would pay the 1.85M salary.

Thanks.

I don't think the example reflects the actual rule. I believe Sec. IX.11 controls, and his salary will be whatever his SOMO cost is. I haven't gone back through the thread, but we amended IX.11 at some point last year. In hindsight, I think we should have kept the rule as originally written, even though I voted to change it.

Reflecting on it now, it would make more sense that minimally the guy would be paid under the schedule set forth in IX.05. I think there were concerns about the renewal rule in IX.06, but once the original draft COTS guys get through their arbitration years, renewals will be used less because only those players who won the previous years arb case and are higher than the 4-6 year minimums would qualify for renewal. And many in that price range would potentially be extended.

Sorry, more long-winded than I wanted.

I don't think the example reflects the actual rule. I believe Sec. IX.11 controls, and his salary will be whatever his SOMO cost is. I haven't gone back through the thread, but we amended IX.11 at some point last year. In hindsight, I think we should have kept the rule as originally written, even though I voted to change it.

Reflecting on it now, it would make more sense that minimally the guy would be paid under the schedule set forth in IX.05. I think there were concerns about the renewal rule in IX.06, but once the original draft COTS guys get through their arbitration years, renewals will be used less because only those players who won the previous years arb case and are higher than the 4-6 year minimums would qualify for renewal. And many in that price range would potentially be extended.

Sorry, more long-winded than I wanted.

The way 9.06 is written is somewhat misleading. It makes it sound that only players with higher salaries than the league minimums can be renewed. Not true. Arb eligible players that had salaries under the minimum can also be renewed but at the minimum for the applicable arb year. I have Tim Anderson who made 1.86mil in 2019, his arb 1 year. I renewed him for 2020 at the minimum of 3.0mil for arb 2 and I'll be renewing him for 2021 for 4.0mil. Madal is right that it was this renewal option that led to the rule change. We realized that it made arbitration useless for players with salaries below (or even a little above) the minimums. The original arb rule said that the player's salary would be the SOMO card price or the league minimum whichever is higher. So why would you ever take a player like that to arbitration when you can just renew him at the minimum, if the minimum is going to be the best case scenario in arbitration anyway? You'd have nothing to gain and a lot to lose if the player had a great year and came in with a costly card.

Thanks for the responses. They helped a great deal.

Can someone help clarify arbitration rule/example IX.13 d(ii)?

We changed this last year and I neglected to change the example in this section to reflect the rule change. You can renew a player at their current salary or at the minimum salary established in section 9.05, which ever is higher. If you take a player to arbitration then the player's salary is determined by the SOM card price.

Let me use Victor Robles for our example. His current salary is $4.31 mil and he will be entering his ARB1 year in 2021. You have the choice of cutting him (please cut him), renewing him for one year at $4.31 mil, extending him for four years at the average salary of the top 50% of players at this primary position, or taking him to arbitration. The problem is that we have to make these decisions prior to the MLB season being played. Do you think Robles will produce a card in 2021 that is valued at more or less than $4.31 million?

The second example is Jonathan Loaisiga. His current salary is $700,000, so you can renew him at $2 mil, take him to salary arbitration, or sign him to a 4 year contract at the average salary of the top 50% of starting pitchers. I think that number will end up being around $4 mil.

I hope this helps.

Phil

That makes it crystal clear. Appreciate it. Thanks.

Phil, am I correct that when it comes time for us to make contract extension decisions the only players eligible for the Rule 9.10(a) 4-year extension are those listed as "arb1" under next year's "2021" heading on our spreadsheets?

Or can "arb 2" guys also be offered that extension?

Phil, am I correct that when it comes time for us to make contract extension decisions the only players eligible for the Rule 9.10(a) 4-year extension are those listed as "arb1" under next year's "2021" heading on our spreadsheets?

Or can "arb 2" guys also be offered that extension?

Both are eligible. Most players will be renewed for $2 mil in their arb 1 year. The tougher choice is in arb 2 because you have to choose between renewing for 1 year at $3 mil and risking paying top 25% prices for the player in his arb 3 year if you choose to extend, or extending in arb 2 for 4 years at top 50% prices. Right now a starting pitcher in arb 2 can be renewed for 1 year at $3 mil or extended for 4 years at ~ $5 mil. If you wait until his arb 3 year to offer a contract extension you would have to pay closer to $6 per year for 5 years to sign him. Of course if you decide to go to arbitration in year 2 and if the player has a career year, you may end up paying Strat-O-Matic's absurd prices. I mean, imagine having to pay well over $5 million for Rhys Hoskins in an arbitration settlement!

Thanks Phil