No arbitration for Davis, Tracy and Schoeneweis

Per Steve Gilbert on Twitter, "D-backs decline to offer arbitration to Doug Davis, Chad Tracy and Scott Schoeneweis." Not really any surprises here: Davis was the only one where I imagine any real thought was required. I imagine it was decided the risk of Davis accepting outweighed the Type B compensation [a sandwich draft pick between the 1st and 2nd rounds]

9 months ago Jim McLennan 18 comments 0 recs |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Dodgers don't offer to O-Dawg

That makes me feel warm inside. Very very warm.

by Counsellmember on Dec 1, 2009 11:56 PM EST reply actions

I'm never really a fan of

passing on picks. I know the budget is tight and we’ve got our respective wishlists, but any organization, especially the “moneyball” franchises, need bodies in their minor leagues. The reason for this is that, in reality, scouts miss more than they hit. So, the more picks the more likely they’ll get one worth keeping.

by Reynolds rapper on Dec 2, 2009 4:26 AM EST reply actions

Well

All three of those would jump at the chance to accept arbitration, which would leave us paying a lot of money for average (DD) and terrible players.

And the Dodgers are a mess.

by paqs on Dec 2, 2009 9:33 AM EST up reply actions

Couldn't Davis

get a big payday from the Mets or Cardinals?

With the explosion of sabremetrics isn’t it going to be possible to mitigate risk somewhat because stats couldbe cherry picked?

by Reynolds rapper on Dec 2, 2009 10:36 AM EST up reply actions

How big?

I wouldn’t offer him more than $20M for 3 years.

And can you clarify the sabermetrics thing? I don’t understand.

by paqs on Dec 2, 2009 4:41 PM EST up reply actions

If Davis' agent claims

his ERA or K/9 or something is such that he should get paid x amount per year. Couldn’t the D-Backs point out that his VORP or pick name of obscure Keith Law Cy Young stat places him more in the middle of the stack.

With old school arbitration the argument would go “I have 80 % of the wins of Pedro, I should make 80% of the money” but now the D Backs could come back with," there is no way he should make that sort of money because he’s 100th in this obscure sabremetrics stat. (probably DD’s WAR or VORP would keep him down around $6 million)." All the DBacks would have to do in that stat would be to quote the five salaries above him and the 5 below him in his worst sabremetric stat.

I tend to really not be a fan of mathematical modeling found in sabremetrics (I have real objections from a Philosophy of Science perspective). However, if you are going to have these whacked out stats clubs should be able to use them in arbitration to keep the prices down.

by Reynolds rapper on Dec 3, 2009 3:56 AM EST up reply actions

Yeah

I don’t think Tom Tango is going to be in the arbitration committee, so it’s pretty much going to be IP, ERA and what are similar pitchers getting.

And even according to the sabermetric crowd, he was worth around $8M in ’09 and close to $10M the last 5 seasons. You can check here:

by paqs on Dec 3, 2009 9:45 AM EST up reply actions

People can throw his walk rate

Out there and probably do some damage in arbitration… Just saying.

Most Depressing Math Question Ever courtesy of Probability class: "Clark and Anthony are two old friends. Let A be the event that Clark will attend Anthony's funeral. Let B be the event that Anthony will attend Clark's funeral. Are A and B independent? Why or why not?"

by IHateSouthBend on Dec 3, 2009 12:41 PM EST up reply actions

I would’ve risked the DD arb. A sandwich 1/2 round pick is very valuable (one of the reasons we had such a good draft last year), and even if DD accepted, I’d be surprised if the arb would’ve been that high, and we basically need a DD equivalent next year anyway… so, what was the risk? Maybe paying $1-2M more than we wanted to, but getting the benefit of a shorter contract?

"Love is the most important thing in the world, but baseball is pretty good too. " ~Greg, age 8

by njjohn on Dec 2, 2009 3:15 PM EST up reply actions

I think

The last offseason proved you can get a guy like Davis for $6-7M. The last thing teams will want to do is pay him more than that and give up a pick. It might be a similar situation like with Cruz last year.

He would almost certainly accept arbitration and we’d be stuck with a $10M+ check for $7-8M of performance. Not a big deal, but we can do better.

by paqs on Dec 2, 2009 4:40 PM EST up reply actions

What makes you think the price tag would be $10M?
The question is how much more DD in arb would cost than his replacement. If that amount is minimal then we should have stuck with DD since we would have nabbed a decent prospect to boot. If we honour and sign a B FA pitcher not only will we not get the DD sandwich pick, but we’ll lose another.

"Love is the most important thing in the world, but baseball is pretty good too. " ~Greg, age 8

by njjohn on Dec 2, 2009 10:55 PM EST via mobile up reply actions

Oops

I replied to this, but it went to the bottom of the page

by paqs on Dec 3, 2009 3:22 AM EST up reply actions

Well

His salary in ’09 was $8.75M and since service time is a factor, you rarely ever see a salary decrease in arbitration, especially for a guy as durable and consistent as Davis. I think $10M is as good a guess as any.

You realize that if we stick with DD and he accepts arbitration, we don’t get the prospect, right? It’s only if he signs elsewhere.

by paqs on Dec 3, 2009 3:22 AM EST reply actions

I think that service time only increases arb up until a certain age. DD, at 34, is well beyond that. In fact, I would have been surprised if he would have been given $8M. And given that Davis has already turned down an offer that likely was somewhere in that range (probably multi-year at 6-7M per) I’d be very surprised if he leapt at the 1 year 8M.

So, in my mind, the worst case is that DD accepts an approx 8M arb and we’re stuck with a very adequate #3 (that we needed anyway) and no pick (and yes, I’m aware if he accepts we receive no pick). On the other hand, by refusing DD we forfeit the pick and may well lose another if and when we pick up another type B FA — and all for the chance of saving 1-2M on DD. To me that sounds penny wise, pound foolish.

"Love is the most important thing in the world, but baseball is pretty good too. " ~Greg, age 8

by njjohn on Dec 3, 2009 9:17 AM EST up reply actions

You're probably right

It depends on:

a) Who we get
b) How much we pay and whether we surrender a pick
c) How much DD would get in arb. (which we won’t know for sure). I could do some research on cot’s site, but I’m too lazy :)

by paqs on Dec 3, 2009 9:49 AM EST up reply actions

No pick lost

For a type B FA. That pick is generated in the sandwich round (mmm, round sandwiches) at no cost to the signing team.

by Counsellmember on Dec 3, 2009 12:23 PM EST up reply actions

Also

AZ’s protected first round pick would mean that if we were to sign a Type A FA we’d be giving up our second round pick, somewhere around # 60-70 overall I think.

I’m an advocate of looking at those Type A relievers. They may really have to lower their pricetags this year due to that restriction.

And why not offer someone like Soriano or Gonzalez a 1 year deal (maybe 5M) with the caveot that we cannot offer arbitration next year? It was done with Cabrera last year. Then he enters next year’s reliever market (surely less full then the current one) with no restriction. That would really boost his price.

by Counsellmember on Dec 3, 2009 12:28 PM EST up reply actions

Helpful info. Thanks Counsellmember. I wasn’t aware of either the fact that we wouldn’t lose pick for a type B FA nor that our first round pick was protected this year.

"Love is the most important thing in the world, but baseball is pretty good too. " ~Greg, age 8

by njjohn on Dec 3, 2009 12:55 PM EST up reply actions