The Arizona Diamondbacks have avoided arbitration and agreed to terms with right-handed pitcher...

The Arizona Diamondbacks have avoided arbitration and agreed to terms with right-handed pitcher Edwin Jackson on a two-year contract.

As announced by D-backs Executive Vice President and General Manager Josh Byrnes, consistent with team policy, terms of the agreement were not disclosed. Jackson had sought $6.25m in arbitration; the club had filed at $4.6 million. Nick Piecoro says Jackson will make $13.35 million over the two years: $5m this year (including an 800K signing bonus) and $8.35m in 2011.

Said Byrnes: "There always is (risk). With every deal we sign we tell the players there’s a chance you’re going to overperform the contract and a chance you’ll underperform. On a two-year basis, obviously it’s easier to assess what’s going to happen on a shorter time frame. We’re happy to do it. Edwin’s starting to build some momentum. He’s a young, healthy pitcher so we felt it was a sensible outcome."

over 2 years ago Jim McLennan 16 comments 1 recs |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Next Fan Fest

he’s going to be wearing two of those big watches.

All targets neutralized. Program completed. By your command.

by soco on Feb 14, 2010 11:51 PM EST reply actions

This is why we made this trade.

Starters on the FA market making $7.5-8.5M? Get Edwin Jackson for less than $7M per for two years when you’re making a run for the division, and in a financial structure that allows for less money to spent when we have less (now, while EB is on the books), and more when we get some freed up next year (plus deferred money payment is always good, financially speaking). The $2M we saved in Max’s salary this year gets us KJ (not the best way to look at it, but a nice consolation). And Kennedy gets minimum (like Schlereth). The money worked out nicely in this one, you have to say.

"I've had Bailey's out of a shoe, though."

by Dan Strittmatter on Feb 15, 2010 2:53 AM EST reply actions

meh

Seems like small potatoes in the grand scheme, but the two year contract doesn’t strike me as particularly club friendly. The worst that could happen (from the team’s perspective) is that we lose arbitration for Jackson’s two years. If he pitches really well this year, how much would that be? 6.25 (2010) and 8.5 (2011)? So, if Edwin goes for maximum money, we save about 1-1.5M?

On the other hand, we’ve now lost the option to non tender him in case of injury or major regression. Also, had we won arbitration at 4.6, then the two year total would probably have been…10-12M? In which case we would be overpaying by a couple million.

Perhaps there is a good will bonus in avoiding the arbitraiton bother. And maybe a million here or a million there is worth that consideration. But to me, we basically give up the benefit of arbitration years in a move like this. However, as I said to begin, I don’t think the risk is particularly bad that we regret it greatly.

by Counsellmember on Feb 15, 2010 12:10 PM EST up reply actions

I think

the 2 year deal was a result of us not being able to spend too much more this year. We still have flexibility on the 2011 payroll, but with all the recent signings our money was running thin for this season. So this way we save a mil+ this season and plan around the extra money next season. Byrnes obviously likes to plan out the budget and not have too many variables, lets not forget his lack of interest in incentive laden contracts.

by G.O.B. on Feb 15, 2010 6:36 PM EST up reply actions

The two-year deal

Saves us a lot more than that. If we lost arb this year, he would have been up for about $10M next year if he performed like last season, or even like a typical #3 starter. That’s $16M+. We aren’t going to non-tender Edwin Jackson…

"I've had Bailey's out of a shoe, though."

by Dan Strittmatter on Feb 16, 2010 12:36 AM EST up reply actions

Best intentions

We aren’t going to non-tender Edwin Jackson…

Russ Ortiz….
Eric Byrnes…
There will be others…

“Don’t be so proud of this technological terror you have created. The ability to destroy a planet is nothing compared to the power of the Force.”

In other words, lets not be over confident. I don’t disagree that the contract may be for the best. I do believe the team consciously traded flexibility for possible financial gain over the next two years. But I have to pause at the guy we chose to do so with; Jackson is far from a sure thing.

by Counsellmember on Feb 17, 2010 5:01 PM EST up reply actions

Think of it this way:

If we didn’t non-tender Conor Jackson and we picked up the option on Brandon Webb, one year of Edwin Jackson performance-wise wasn’t going to possibly convince us to not retain him for 2011 when we have guaranteed control over him.

"I've had Bailey's out of a shoe, though."

by Dan Strittmatter on Feb 17, 2010 8:09 PM EST up reply actions

What if

he requires Tommy John surgery in July? You offer him arbitration then?

Just to be clear, I don’t dislike the contract. I’m simply neutral on it due to the loss of team flexibility for a maximum savings of a few million dollars.

by Counsellmember on Feb 18, 2010 12:11 AM EST up reply actions