436 replies to this topic

[PedroKsBambino]

A weak attempt at spin from the Boras camp through credibility-challenged mouthpiece Heyman. I think it's preposterous to suggest the Sox were going to play it that way. It's one thing to hardball your captain, it's another to bring him along for that long under a contract and then cut him!

That's particularly true since they didn't need to offer arb to him to continue the dialogue. That's something that was true in the past and no longer applies.

Edited by PedroKsBambino, 22 January 2009 - 03:17 PM.

[86spike]

Even so, it's still a mystery to many why Varitek didn't take arbitration. And even Red Sox owner John Henry asked Varitek in their well-publicized meeting a week ago why he didn't take the arbitration offer. The reason is that Varitek didn't believe that accepting arbitration would guarantee him a spot on the team.

they left off the next part:

and Varitek felt confident that several other teams would want him, be willing to pay him what he asks for, and would offer him guaranteed playing time.

turns out none of those things came true.

[Smiling Joe Hesketh]

A weak attempt at spin from the Boras camp through credibility-challenged mouthpiece Heyman. I think it's preposterous to suggest the Sox were going to play it that way. It's one thing to hardball your captain, it's another to bring him along for that long under a contract and then cut him!

That's particularly true since they didn't need to offer arb to him to continue the dialogue. That's something that was true in the past and no longer applies.

I agree. From what's been reported from that meeting between Varitek and JWH, either Varitek comes across as incredibly ignorant regarding the arb and FA process (claiming that he didn't know that teams would have to give up a draft pick to sign him, and now claiming he was afraid he'd be cut if he accepted arb), or someone in that camp is lying through their teeth in an attempt to save face in the wake of apparent total non-interest in his services.

[xjack]

I don't for a second believe that Varitek didn't know there would be draft pick compensation for the Sox if another team signed him. However, I do believe it's possible that Heidi didn't know that.

[86spike]

There is only one believable explanation for why Tek didn't accept the arbitration offer:

Varitek thought/thinks that he deserves a multi-year deal as a starter and was confident that he would have offers and options regardless of the draft picks. No doubt he thought/thinks that one of the multi-year offers would be coming from the Sox, so this is not meant to imply that his refusal of arb was some sort of rejection of Boston.

He was confident in his worth and it turns out he was wrong. All other justifications are nothing more than spin and horseshit.

[SoxsFans]

I agree. From what's been reported from that meeting between Varitek and JWH, either Varitek comes across as incredibly ignorant regarding the arb and FA process (claiming that he didn't know that teams would have to give up a draft pick to sign him, and now claiming he was afraid he'd be cut if he accepted arb), or someone in that camp is lying through their teeth in an attempt to save face in the wake of apparent total non-interest in his services.

I find it more likely that he didn't realize the impact a draft pick would have on his value moreso than he didn't know there would be one attached to him. I think it boils down to he and Boras misread his market.

[hair and cheese]

What's up with Theo in all this? So far he has resigned Bard, a guy he is on record saying that he regreted trading and touted the potential of the AAA tandem. Its been reported that hes talked with Texas and his old buddy Byrnes in AZ about Montero. Im sure hes done more but nothing rumored. Before Tek and Mr. Henry met he gave his patented placid update on the catching position. He basically acknowledged Tek was still out there and seemed confident in Bard/Kottaras or Brown.

I didnt really expect the press to get any info about the meeting with Tek and Mr. Henry. I'm not about to put any stock in Hiedi Whatney's "research". It can only be speculated as to why a meeting with the owner without the G.M. is needed. It was reported Tek requested the meeting and Boras's calls werent being returned. A negotiation of this size and nature shouldnt require a meeting with the owner. I'd like to think it was a classy thing for the owner to meet with his captain but there has to be much more to this whole thing. I'd bet Luchinno is completely done with Boras leading to him be mum about the whole thing.

Maybe there is some truth to Heymans latest regarging Teks thoughts about arbirtration and the potential to be cut. Maybe Tek and Boras figured Theo would have bent TX over by now or dealt for Martin or something. Something that would allow them to cut Tek. While working with him for years Theo never gushed about his child hero til he got in to the Hall of Fame. Im sure he has little to no sentimentality for his captain who hasnt hit in a year and half.

Can only imagine what type of predictions baseball operations has Tek if he played 60-70% of the time over the next 2 years. Its 3 weeks from Spring Training and Theo still has his prospects. Based on that it wouldnt shock me if he is still only mildly open to bringing Tek back for a maximum of one year. He has got to have something up his sleeve.

[YTF]

There is only one believable explanation for why Tek didn't accept the arbitration offer:

Varitek thought/thinks that he deserves a multi-year deal as a starter and was confident that he would have offers and options regardless of the draft picks. No doubt he thought/thinks that one of the multi-year offers would be coming from the Sox, so this is not meant to imply that his refusal of arb was some sort of rejection of Boston.

He was confident in his worth and it turns out he was wrong. All other justifications are nothing more than spin and horseshit.

I have two thoughts on this.......First off, why wasn't this the first response to this thread? Short, sweet, and most likely dead on. My second thought......... Thank fuck this wasn't the first response to this thread. Real baseball news is slow at the moment and this has given me the bulk of my SOSH entertainment for the last week or so. Either way, well said Spike.

[YTF]

I didnt really expect the press to get any info about the meeting with Tek and Mr. Henry. I'm not about to put any stock in Hiedi Whatney's "research". It can only be speculated as to why a meeting with the owner without the G.M. is needed. It was reported Tek requested the meeting and Boras's calls werent being returned. A negotiation of this size and nature shouldnt require a meeting with the owner. I'd like to think it was a classy thing for the owner to meet with his captain but there has to be much more to this whole thing. I'd bet Luchinno is completely done with Boras leading to him be mum about the whole thing.

My speculation would be this.......... Part courtesy call, part reality check for Tek and Boras. Because of the difference in opinion of worth in terms of $$$ and years, I'm guessing Mr Henry wanted to make it clear to Varitek and his agent exactly where the Sox stand in all of this. Coming from Theo (and I'm sure that it has) it may be taken as negotiation and that there is room to deal. I'm guessing that the Sox have limited interest but don't want this to linger much longer. Getting the word directly from the man that signs the paychecks in a face to face meeting should leave little doubt as to where the club stands and be an indication that time is running out. The thing that makes it so difficult (for those who claim that the Sox hold all of the cards in this situation) is that they actually don't quite hold them all. As long as they still show any interest in Varitek (limited as it may be) Tek and Boras have something to work at.

[xjack]

Maybe there is some truth to Heymans latest regarging Teks thoughts about arbirtration and the potential to be cut. Maybe Tek and Boras figured Theo would have bent TX over by now or dealt for Martin or something. Something that would allow them to cut Tek.

I actually think this is/was a legit concern for Varitek.

As you said, Theo doesn't have a sentimental bone in his body. If Tek had accepted arbitration, Theo would have continued to try to negotiate trades for Salty and Montero and work other trade/free agent angles. If Theo needed to free up some cash for something, there's no question he would have been willing to dump Varitek's contract.

[SoxFanSince57]

I am confounded by what Tek was trying to accomplish by his recent statements. They certainly won't influence the Sox to increase their offer at this point in time.

As I see it, all these statements did was to lower his image with the public. If one were to believe the reports by Watney and Heyman, many will conclude that Tek is either a liar, incredibly uninformed/stupid or quite willing to throw his long-time agent/business partner, Scott Boras, under the bus.

What desperation drove these statements? What could he possibly have thought would be the outcome?

[hair and cheese]

I tend to think Tek goes into the negotiations thinking that he'd want "not quite posada money" over 3 years with thoughts of a two year deal at the potential arbitration salary figure in the back of his mind. He could have been thinking Im the captain, I have two rings, and everyone loves me. And, I have Boras. There is no way anyone could have predicted that the ecomomy and the Sox/Boras relationship were going to crash as hard as they did. The Sox are as close to recession proof as just about any business. If they were absolutely positive right now they wanted Tek for more than a year they would sign him regardless of Boras. However, I think if the Sox signed Texieria Tek would already have a two year deal at a minimum.

[mabrowndog]

However, I think if the Sox signed Texieria Tek would already have a two year deal at a minimum.

A 2-year deal from the Sox or from some other team?

Either way, I'm not sure I follow your logic. Can you expound?

EDIT - "Texieria"??? What the hell happened to the word filter?

Edited by mabrowndog, 22 January 2009 - 06:16 PM.

[PedroSpecialK]

EDIT - "Texieria"??? What the hell happened to the word filter?

I believe we've found someone whose inability to spell has... defeated the word filter.

[hair and cheese]

A 2-year deal from the Sox or from some other team?

Either way, I'm not sure I follow your logic. Can you expound?

EDIT - "Texieria"??? What the hell happened to the word filter?

From the Sox...I think a big part of this is the strained relationship with Boras but I suspect the Sox would at least be returning the calls from Boras and be more open to negotiating with him if Tex isnt a Yankee, or more specifically a member of the Sox.

Edited by hair and cheese, 22 January 2009 - 06:36 PM.

[Dim13]

From the Sox...I think a big part of this is the strained relationship with Boras but I suspect the Sox would at least be returning the calls from Boras and be more open to negotiating with him if Tex isnt a Yankee, or more specifically a member of the Sox.

I think this probably has less to do with their relationship with Boras and more to do with the idea that they likely felt they could hide Varitek's inept offense better if they had Teixeira in the lineup. But with three huge offensive questions going into the season (Ortiz and his wrist, Lowell and his hip, and Lowrie with his injury and also the uncertainty of his ability to handle the starting role for a full season), I think the Sox are treading carefully with just giving Varitek and his bat a guaranteed spot.

Strange to say, but I really think the lack of a contract for Varitek at this point has as much to do with their concerns about Ortiz, Lowell, and/or Lowrie in '09 as it does with Varitek's declining ability going forward.

[paulftodd]

EEI mentioned today that Varitek's mediation hearing for his divorce is about to happen very soon. I know little; if any; regarding such hearings; but is it possible he is holding out until after his divorce is final? I guess they think it's possible he's already made up his mind to stay in Boston; or not.

There might be something to that, I do not know. But Tek can avoid the draft pick issue by waiting until after the June draft to sign and if he signs in a hitters park and weak league like the NL west, he might put himself in position for a decent pay day in 2010 if the economy picks up.

Of course, the Red Sox do not have the concerns about losing a draft pick so it is best to sign him earlier rather than later, if they want him. If they choose to roll the dice and go with what they have, or lose a top prospect to get someone to replace him, it should be interesting, to say the least. If our pitching gets wacked around in the first 2 months, and Tek is on the market still, his price goes up.

There are too many uncertainties as it is with Ortiz, Lowell, Ellsbury, Lowrie (Ellsbury looked great in year one, look what happened in year 2), not to mention the injury prone Drew. Tek offers stability with the all important pitching staff, even if he swings like Willie Mo Pena from the left side of the plate.

[OCD SS]

I agree. From what's been reported from that meeting between Varitek and JWH, either Varitek comes across as incredibly ignorant regarding the arb and FA process (claiming that he didn't know that teams would have to give up a draft pick to sign him, and now claiming he was afraid he'd be cut if he accepted arb), or someone in that camp is lying through their teeth in an attempt to save face in the wake of apparent total non-interest in his services.

And just to make it perfectly clear, Tek's two different positions are mutually exclusive in the real world: I do not find it credible in any way, shape, or form that he

• didn't know enough about the basics of arbitration to not realize that teams would lose a pick if they signed him and
• did know enough about its finer details to be aware that the contract he might reach through arbitration would not be guaranteed.

[NomarsFool]

So, what would a final Varitek contract look like? The Globe this morning said that the Sox need to not "embarass" Varitek, but really, how can they not?

It's really hard to see Varitek's value to the club being much more than $5 million a year, if they are generous, $5 million a year for 2 years. Either way, that's half what he would have made in arbitration. Like it or not, 'Tek is getting a significant pay cut from last season - and that's going to be embarassing. If the Sox pay him what he would have earned in arbitration, that's just being stupid.

[mabrowndog]

So, what would a final Varitek contract look like?

Are you asking us? Because this entire thread has been a debate over what his contract should look like.

[xjack]

It's really hard to see Varitek's value to the club being much more than $5 million a year, if they are generous, $5 million a year for 2 years. Either way, that's half what he would have made in arbitration. Like it or not, 'Tek is getting a significant pay cut from last season - and that's going to be embarassing. If the Sox pay him what he would have earned in arbitration, that's just being stupid.

Could someone explain to me why it's so obvious (at least obvious to the baseball media) that Tek would have been awarded $10+ million in arbitration?

There was no floor on the number the Sox could have submitted to the arbitrator, and it seems to me like Benjie Molina's 3 year/$16 million contract is an obvious comparable... And that's being generous to Tek -- Molina has been a much better hitter in recent years and Molina's overall resume (World Series champion in 2002, helped develop young aces like John Lackey and Tim Lincecum, etc.) is right up there with Tek's.

[Crazy Puppy]

Could someone explain to me why it's so obvious (at least obvious to the baseball media) that Tek would have been awarded $10+ million in arbitration?

Has a player ever had his pay cut in the history of MLB arbitration? Granted, there is a very short list of free agents that have ever accepted arbitration and then actually gone to a hearing, but if you add in the pre-FA cases, there's little to no precedent for cutting a player's salary.

[xjack]

there's little to no precedent for cutting a player's salary.

Precedent is only relevant if there's been an arbitration case where the team submitted a number that would have represented a pay cut. I don't think it's happened.

[PedroKsBambino]

Precedent is only relevant if there's been an arbitration case where the team submitted a number that would have represented a pay cut. I don't think it's happened.

That's completely and totally wrong. Precedent is that teams are generally unwilling to submit a lower number because of a concern that if they do the player's number will be even more likely to be selected by the arbitrator. Those are the facts here.

It is conceivable the Red Sox would have submitted a lower number and won, but there's a reason it isn't often tried, too.

[YTF]

EEI mentioned today that Varitek's mediation hearing for his divorce is about to happen very soon. I know little; if any; regarding such hearings; but is it possible he is holding out until after his divorce is final? I guess they think it's possible he's already made up his mind to stay in Boston; or not.

I know little of such things as well, but if you're implying that he's holding off on signing for monetary reasons, I can't imagine that any savvy divorce lawyer is going to let the yet to be determined earnings of an MLB player go ignored. I'm guessing that a percentage will be worked out for whatever Varitek's future contract pays him.

[xjack]

That's completely and totally wrong. Precedent is that teams are generally unwilling to submit a lower number because of a concern that if they do the player's number will be even more likely to be selected by the arbitrator.

Can you name a single free agent arbitration case that would have been remotely comparable to this one? With type A compensation? A high-priced player coming off a bad year? And the player accepting arbitration?... There are no precedents.

Moreover, the CBA is very clear on this. The arbitrator's decision is supposed to be based on "comparative baseball salaries" and "the Player's contribution to the club DURING THE PAST SEASON." (Emphasis added.) Nowhere in the CBA does it say anything about pay cuts being discouraged or verboten... Given the wording in the CBA, I don't see much likelihood that Varitek would have been awarded $10 million salary if he'd come in at $10 million and the Sox had submitted $6 million.

http://www.scribd.co...66175/MLBPA-CBA

[Rough Carrigan]

I know little of such things as well, but if you're implying that he's holding off on signing for monetary reasons, I can't imagine that any savvy divorce lawyer is going to let the yet to be determined earnings of an MLB player go ignored. I'm guessing that a percentage will be worked out for whatever Varitek's future contract pays him.

Oh. Tek didn't know that.
(Just like -wink wink- he didn't know that teams signing him would have to give up a draft pick because the Sox offered arbitration.)

Edited by Rough Carrigan, 23 January 2009 - 06:43 PM.

[PedroKsBambino]

Can you name a single free agent arbitration case that would have been remotely comparable to this one? With type A compensation? A high-priced player coming off a bad year? And the player accepting arbitration?... There are no precedents.

Moreover, the CBA is very clear on this. The arbitrator's decision is supposed to be based on "comparative baseball salaries" and "the Player's contribution to the club DURING THE PAST SEASON." (Emphasis added.) Nowhere in the CBA does it say anything about pay cuts being discouraged or verboten... Given the wording in the CBA, I don't see much likelihood that Varitek would have been awarded $10 million salary if he'd come in at $10 million and the Sox had submitted $6 million.

http://www.scribd.co...66175/MLBPA-CBA

You continue to misunderstand, I think. The argument is not that we couldn't justify him being paid less. What has been noted is that it is basically unheard of for a team to offer a paycut, much less for an arbitrator to actually award a paycut, through the current process. And that's in spite of players having bad years before arbitration occasionally.

So, all of the history that several of us are aware of is that players really do not get a paycut in arbitration hearings. That's why people are saying there's no precedent for what you are suggesting. Is it possible such a thing could happen? Maybe...but you're trying to turn a hypothetical into precedent and that's a misuse of the term. If someone finds a case where it's happened, that would be a precedent for it...we haven't heard or seen that yet, though, and I am not aware of one.

You wanted to know originally why the writers were suggesting he would get a raise---the answer is 'because a look at what happens in arbitration hearings suggests that is by far the most likely occurrence'

Edited by PedroKsBambino, 23 January 2009 - 07:56 PM.

[Omar's Wacky Neighbor]

My kid brother in WPB isn't a divorce attorney, but he's often brought into any sorts of cases where assets are involved (specialty is wills/trusts/estates and advising on legal ways to avoid taxes on large sums of money):

"They’ve probably already agreed to this (the divorcing couple). But one of the frustrating things of divorce law is an attempt to resolve property distribution of things which don’t even exist yet—an expected inheritance, a bonus, royalties, and new compensation/contract. They probably have that in mind and have conducted discovery on this and are estimating what the new contact will bring. "

[xjack]

You continue to misunderstand, I think. The argument is not that we couldn't justify him being paid less. What has been noted is that it is basically unheard of for a team to offer a paycut, much less for an arbitrator to actually award a paycut, through the current process. And that's in spite of players having bad years before arbitration occasionally.

So, all of the history that several of us are aware of is that players really do not get a paycut in arbitration hearings. That's why people are saying there's no precedent for what you are suggesting. Is it possible such a thing could happen? Maybe...but you're trying to turn a hypothetical into precedent and that's a misuse of the term. If someone finds a case where it's happened, that would be a precedent for it...we haven't heard or seen that yet, though, and I am not aware of one.

You wanted to know originally why the writers were suggesting he would get a raise---the answer is 'because a look at what happens in arbitration hearings suggests that is by far the most likely occurrence'

I fear you're missing the point. This is a bit like suggesting there's no precedent for the Yankees beating a single-A team in the World Series: the mere fact that it's never happened before doesn't have any bearing on the likely outcome of such a matchup.

Similarly, whether or not there's a precedent for a player like Varitek getting a paycut in arbitration is irrelevant if a situation such has Varitek's has never come up before. Based on your logic, I could assert that there's no precedent for NOT cutting Varitek's pay via arbitration. That would be just as true as your statement, but equally irrelevant.

What is relevant are the rules for deciding arbitration cases. And as referenced above, the rules and criteria are pretty clear.

Edited by xjack, 23 January 2009 - 08:57 PM.

[leeharris]

For the uninformed of us, would someone be able to give an answer (or estimate) when the Varitek saga is likely to be over, i.e. at what point if a deal has not been done, is it just too late to get done and we can assume they'll go with what they have and/or pick up a player by trade later in the year.

[paulftodd]

Generally players are not assessed soley on the basis of their last season. Varitek had a decent year in 2007, seems we won a World series that year.

According to Baseball Graphs, Teks annual value was as follows in the years below:

http://www.fangraphs...e...&position=C

2002, 5.9 million, salary 3.5 million (loss for tek 1.4 million)
2003-2004 (avg) 13.0 million, avg annual salary 5.8 million (loss for Tek 7.2 million x 2 = 14.6 million)
2005-2006 (avg) 10.0 million, avg annual salary 9.0 million (loss for Tek, 1 million x 2= 2 million)
2007-2008 (avg) 8.8 million (5.6 in 2008, 12.1 million in 2007), avg annual salary 10.7 million, (gain for tek 1.9 million x 2 = 3.8 million)

Net loss (salary vs value) for Tek since 2002 = 14.2 million

His market value among teams who did not profit from Tek in his pre-FA years is based on what Tek can do for them today, less the value of a draft pick. If you want to argue the Red Sox should pay only market value for Tek, and forget the past where Tek played 7 years as a slave, as all players do, you may do so of course. It is a business, but it may cost you when you seek to retain players as they enter their FA years, since they will remember Tek.

But will the real Varitek please stand up, 2007 or 2008. The guys went through a messy divorce, much like Drew went through some bad times in 2007 over his kid, this affects performance. But if you look at 2007 and 2008 combined, a fair assessment would be 8 million (plus my fee ).

As for Tek declaring FA and declining arbitration, thats what the system is all about. He could have accepted arbitration, maybe got 8-10 million, and then could have been cut and not received a dime and then have to negotiate a contract after being cut. As a FA, he can negotiate with all teams, but that does not preclude him signing with the Red Sox. His contract had expired, he has to negotiate a contract anyways, why not see what else is out there.

The system is unfair given the rising value of prospects today as a player basically has to compensate another team for losing a draft pick, despite working as a slave for 7 years and being paid less than his market value in that period. But hey, thats the system the players agreed to. It worked well when gas was going up, not so much when gas goes down.

[Bowlerman9]

For the uninformed of us, would someone be able to give an answer (or estimate) when the Varitek saga is likely to be over, i.e. at what point if a deal has not been done, is it just too late to get done and we can assume they'll go with what they have and/or pick up a player by trade later in the year.

In June when he signs with another team.

[PedroKsBambino]

I fear you're missing the point. This is a bit like suggesting there's no precedent for the Yankees beating a single-A team in the World Series: the mere fact that it's never happened before doesn't have any bearing on the likely outcome of such a matchup.

Similarly, whether or not there's a precedent for a player like Varitek getting a paycut in arbitration is irrelevant if a situation such has Varitek's has never come up before. Based on your logic, I could assert that there's no precedent for NOT cutting Varitek's pay via arbitration. That would be just as true as your statement, but equally irrelevant.

What is relevant are the rules for deciding arbitration cases. And as referenced above, the rules and criteria are pretty clear.

Nope, pretty clear to me that I'm not missing anything at all here.

Your comparison to the Yankees playing a single A team misunderstands what several of us have been telling you. Your second paragraph bears no relation to anything that's been said, so I'm not going there.

What you are trying to say is that Varitek had a really bad year and thus, could be treated differently than most (and quite likely all) players before him. I've acknowledged that is conceivable, and said as much before. We'd have to do a major study of every single arb player to assess that for sure. The fact that no case exactly like his has been heard (since, of course, every player and their prior year's performance is unique) is undoubtable, and perhaps you are hung up on that fact.

However, your initial question was why writers were saying that he'd get at least $10 mil. And, very clearly, the reason is that historically in arbitration that is what happens for players---they get as much, or more, money than the prior contract. There is a pretty significant number of players who have gone to arb and they tend to get at least as much as they did the prior year. That is the history here, and I believe it is certainly relevant (though not dispositive, either).

Could the writers additionally have said "now, it's conceivable that Varitek will be the first to get a pay cut (or the very rare case, at least)" Sure they could have---and the reasons you cite (he sucked, many players who suck aren't offered arb, thus his situation might be different in arb than many or most others) would have been relevant to that caveat. However, as a couple of us have noted, the scenario you are suggesting is rare (or has never happened) and thus it's pretty understandable why the writers relied on the history without the caveat, too. And thus, the answer to your initial question.

[86spike]

We all realize that Tek accepting arb would not have guaranteed that he actually wound up in an arb hearing, right?

There would have been a couple of months for he and Theo to work out a deal before going in front of an arbitrator. And, much to Tek's delight, agreeing to a deal during that time would result in a guaranteed contract. (not to mention they know damn well that the Sox would be motivated to come to an agreement long before a hearing to remove uncertainty)

Tek declined arb because he thought he could easily get at least a 2 year deal. That's it.

This crap about not wanting to risk the hearing is just more bullshit out of the Boras spin room. They have zero leverage and are making a desperate play to gain some by trying to make Tek look like a victim with the fans to drum up some Johnny From Burger King outcry. It's the only card they have left... get the fans angry at Theo and hope he doesn't want to take a PR hit.

Don't fall for it, kids. All debate about this is pointless. Boras made it up.

[cannonball 1729]

What you are trying to say is that Varitek had a really bad year and thus, could be treated differently than most (and quite likely all) players before him. I've acknowledged that is conceivable, and said as much before. We'd have to do a major study of every single arb player to assess that for sure. The fact that no case exactly like his has been heard (since, of course, every player and their prior year's performance is unique) is undoubtable, and perhaps you are hung up on that fact.

I think you overestimate how much history there is here. This is the list of every veteran free agent who has gone to an arbitrator since 1991 - not those who accepted arbitration and worked out a deal (like Maddux or Millwood), but those who actually argued in front of an arbitrator:

Todd Walker, 2007
Mark Loretta, 2008

That's it.

Mark Loretta had a base salary of $2.5 mil and another $1 mil in bonuses ($3.5 million in total) the previous year. He submitted an offer of $4.9 mil and the Astros submitted an offer of $2.75 mil. The Astros won.

Todd Walker made (I believe) $2.5 million the previous year. He submitted an offer of $3.95 mil and the Padres countered with $2.95 mil. Walker won, and he was cut a month later.

So, in the last 18 years, we have two players who went to arbitration, neither of whom were coming off of huge contracts, one of whom actually ended up with a pay cut. I would say that history is absolutely no guide as to what might have happened with Varitek.

Edited by cannonball 1729, 24 January 2009 - 02:20 AM.

[Bowlerman9]

So, in the last 18 years, we have two players who went to arbitration, neither of whom were coming off of huge contracts, one of whom actually ended up with a pay cut. I would say that history is absolutely no guide as to what might have happened with Varitek.

Again, thats not PKB's point. Instead of looking at whats there, look at whats not there. There have been (guessing a number here) hundreds if not thousands of players who put up terrible seasons in walk years. How many of those guys have been offered arbitration? Around zero? Teams dont offer arbitration to players in hopes of them receiving half of what they made the previous year. Its entirely *possible* that they get less in arbitration, given the way the CBA is written. But if it was a reasonable expectation that an arb panel would rule in favor of the team giving the player a pay decrease, dont you think we would have seen far more cases of teams offering arb to those players?

Dont get me wrong, someday, a precedent will be set. A player will be offered arb, accept, and take a pay cut. It will happen at some point. It just hasnt happened yet. Could Varitek have been the first? Absolutely. But the fact that it has never happened before is telling in itself - teams dont offer arbitration to players who are going to take a pay cut. They just dont.

What hasnt happened, in this case, is just as relevant as what has.

[cannonball 1729]

Dont get me wrong, someday, a precedent will be set. A player will be offered arb, accept, and take a pay cut. It will happen at some point. It just hasnt happened yet.

Yes, it has. Mark Loretta made $3.5 million in 2007. He went to arbitration and got $2.75 million. Not only is that a pay cut, it's less than 80% of his previous year's salary, which is the number that everyone seems to get hung up on. Moreover, since there are only two cases in the last 18 years, this means that in half of all cases, the player has ended up with a pay cut of over 20%.

Again, thats not PKB's point. Instead of looking at whats there, look at whats not there. There have been (guessing a number here) hundreds if not thousands of players who put up terrible seasons in walk years. How many of those guys have been offered arbitration? Around zero?

Off the top of my head, Bernie Williams comes to mind. He made $15 million dollars in the last year of his big contract, was offered arb, and settled for a $1.5 million dollar deal.

Actually, in 2007-2008 alone, we had a few:

- Michael Barrett made $4.6 million, accepted arb, and settled for $3.5 mil.

- Mike Piazza, a DH who played 83 games, didn't hit, and made $8.5 million, was offered arbitration. He declined, then retired because he didn't get any offers that promised him enough playing time. (He was a Type B, FWIW)

- Eric Gagne, The Human Gas Can, was offered arbitration by the Sox.

It's not as uncommon as you'd think.

Here's a better question: if a player were horrible in a walk year, why would a team want so badly to re-sign him anyway, arbitration or not? We've taken what hasn't happened (teams offering arb to players who played badly in walk years) and ascribed to it the motive that "they must be afraid that the player will get the same salary." What if the motive is that they don't want the player back at market rate, even on a one-year deal? Or that they don't want the player at all, since he played so terribly?

Edited by cannonball 1729, 24 January 2009 - 01:08 AM.

[leeharris]

In June when he signs with another team.

?
So the Red Sox will be trying to work something out with him until June? I don't think that's right is it. But thanks for the condescension. I appreciate it.

[someoneanywhere]

?
So the Red Sox will be trying to work something out with him until June? I don't think that's right is it. But thanks for the condescension. I appreciate it.

Bowler can of course speak for himself, but I don't think he was trying to condescend. He was only saying that in June, the leverage that the Sox have -- the draft picks they would get as compensation for another team signing Tek -- disappears after the draft. No team will sign him now because he would cost them draft positions, but conceivably may sign him once that cost doesn't exist.

As for life in the real world -- when the inevitable happens and Tek signs with the Sox -- I don't think anyone but Jason Varitek has a clue.

[BigMike]

?
So the Red Sox will be trying to work something out with him until June? I don't think that's right is it. But thanks for the condescension. I appreciate it.

Bowlerman is right, the Varitek Saga could easily run into June, and as long as he is out there, then there is the potential that he finally ends up in Boston. Bard could fail, whoever the backup is could struggle badly. Someone could get injured. As long as Tek is a FA, there will be people in the fanbase, and probably people in the organization pushing for him to be re-signed

If you see the Red Sox make a major deal for One of the young catchers that might eliminate Tek from Boston, but really it might not.

My guess is if Varitek is going to sign with Boston it will be in the next 3 weeks. If he is going to sign it will probably be no later than 2 days after pitchers and catchers report, and more likely by P&C day

[Bowlerman9]

?
So the Red Sox will be trying to work something out with him until June? I don't think that's right is it. But thanks for the condescension. I appreciate it.

You asked a pretty ridiculous question and I gave an honest answer.

No team other than Boston is going to sign Varitek between now and June because they do not want to give up a draft pick for him.

Boston could sign Varitek at any point between now and when he signs with another team.

You asked a question implying that there was some point in time that the Sox just wouldnt sign him. That point is when he signs with another team, which wont be until June.

Boston could go into 2009 with, lets say, Bard and Kottaras, they could both hit under 200 for the month of April, and Boston could turn around and up their offer to Varitek out of desperation. Not likely they give up on the kids this early, but its possible.

So if you want to know when the saga will be over, thats when Varitek signs somewhere. Its not like the Varitek chapter will be closed once spring training starts. There is always the chance they bring him back. Its over when he signs somewhere, which could be as late as June.

Were you looking for some other answer?

[leeharris]

You asked a pretty ridiculous question and I gave an honest answer.

No team other than Boston is going to sign Varitek between now and June because they do not want to give up a draft pick for him.

Boston could sign Varitek at any point between now and when he signs with another team.

You asked a question implying that there was some point in time that the Sox just wouldnt sign him. That point is when he signs with another team, which wont be until June.

Boston could go into 2009 with, lets say, Bard and Kottaras, they could both hit under 200 for the month of April, and Boston could turn around and up their offer to Varitek out of desperation. Not likely they give up on the kids this early, but its possible.

So if you want to know when the saga will be over, thats when Varitek signs somewhere. Its not like the Varitek chapter will be closed once spring training starts. There is always the chance they bring him back. Its over when he signs somewhere, which could be as late as June.

Were you looking for some other answer?

if I was overly sensitive then I apologise. Yes, I was looking for another answer, and don't quite believe it's not clear. The scenario you outline is not at all what I was talking about. I am asking, at what point do the Sox just move on with preparation for the new season assuming that Varitek won't be part of that preparation. I am not talking about whether or not they need help later in the year, I'm fairly sure June comes after the season starts. Is it just the starting day of spring training? We have new pitchers on the team, so I assume that it would be important for the team to focus on the team "as is" in terms of catching at that point, actually I don't know when spring training starts, but I suppose I can look that up rather than ask in here again. But actually I just wasn't sure if there was a date when the team would just say, OK, this hasn't worked out, we need to assume Bard/Kottaras will be working the pitching staff from opening day.
By the way, I'm sorry my question was "ridiculous". I am from the UK and am a relative newcomer to the game, I certainly have no history in terms of knowing how the normal calendar works outside of the season, nor what dates are cutoffs for arb offers. And before you say look that up, no, I just wouldn't know to look that up, I don't really know how it works. Which sort of explains my "ridiculous" question. It reminds me sometimes of those people who scream and rant at new internet users for not reading "FAQ" and following "posting guidelines". Er, they don't know what an FAQ is - they're new to newsgroups, so why would they refer to that first? (not saying that some people just can't be bothered to do a little poking around, but you get my drift). Anyway, thanks for the reply, so the Sox will be working on a deal with Varitek until June. cheers.

Edited by leeharris, 24 January 2009 - 12:30 PM.

[Rough Carrigan]

Buster Olney says in his link list today that Tek wants to get just as much money as he would have gotten through arbitration if he signs a 1 year deal and about the same spread over two years if it's a real 2 year contract. Market meet Jason Varitek. Jason Varitek, meet your market. You two aren't familiar with each other, are you?

Here's the exact quote:

Here is where they stand in the impasse: Varitek is asking for an annual salary close to the $10-12 million he would've made through arbitration, or a two-year deal for less annual salary. The Red Sox are willing to pay him much less than that, and don't feel they owe him extra cash for services rendered in the past, and they don't feel they owe it to him to offer a salary commensurate with what Varitek would've made if he had accepted arbitration.

Edited by Rough Carrigan, 24 January 2009 - 12:35 PM.

[leeharris]

Buster Olney says in his link list today that Tek wants to get just as much money as he would have gotten through arbitration if he signs a 1 year deal and about the same spread over two years if it's a real 2 year contract. Market meet Jason Varitek. Jason Varitek, meet your market. You two aren't familiar with each other, are you?

well I'd say again (and no, to be clear - again, I'd be quite happy for the Sox to play hardball here and just move on), why does the market only work "hardcore" when it's the players who want. Players sign below market deals all the time. I've heard that Varitek's last deal wasn't that much of an overpay ($5M?) and that prior to that he may well have been underpaid. I just think it's interesting/curious that people are so quick to point out the market value of players to the single dime and cent when it suits them, but are happy to accept deals that work the other way around.

[Don Buddin]

if I was overly sensitive then I apologise. Yes, I was looking for another answer, and don't quite believe it's not clear. The scenario you outline is not at all what I was talking about. I am asking, at what point do the Sox just move on with preparation for the new season assuming that Varitek won't be part of that preparation. I am not talking about whether or not they need help later in the year, I'm fairly sure June comes after the season starts. Is it just the starting day of spring training? We have new pitchers on the team, so I assume that it would be important for the team to focus on the team "as is" in terms of catching at that point, actually I don't know when spring training starts, but I suppose I can look that up rather than ask in here again. But actually I just wasn't sure if there was a date when the team would just say, OK, this hasn't worked out, we need to assume Bard/Kottaras will be working the pitching staff from opening day.
By the way, I'm sorry my question was "ridiculous". I am from the UK and am a relative newcomer to the game, I certainly have no history in terms of knowing how the normal calendar works outside of the season, nor what dates are cutoffs for arb offers. And before you say look that up, no, I just wouldn't know to look that up, I don't really know how it works. Which sort of explains my "ridiculous" question. It reminds me sometimes of those people who scream and rant at new internet users for not reading "FAQ" and following "posting guidelines". Er, they don't know what an FAQ is - they're new to newsgroups, so why would they refer to that first? (not saying that some people just can't be bothered to do a little poking around, but you get my drift). Anyway, thanks for the reply, so the Sox will be working on a deal with Varitek until June. cheers.

You're just begging to be picked on aren't you?

But before people jump in and do that, maybe I can try another way to asnwer your question.

Think of it this way. Teams are always looking to improve. So long as the Sox see Varitek as a possible improvement to what they have now, and so long as he hasn't signed elsewhere or retired, he will be under their consideration. Now while it's possible at some point the Sox get tired of Tek's demands (whatever they are), I can't imagine they have any sort of drop dead date in mind.

[bankshot1]

Someone should explain a few things to Jason:

1) a wild pitch: What Boras told him about his market value coming off the 2008 season

2) a passed ball: what Jason did by letting the Sox arb offer bounce off his chest protector and roll to the backstop

3) an intentional walk: what he's in the process of doing

4) getting stranded: what it appears will happen to Jason in this current market for a 37 year old catcher coming off a poor year.


It Jason really wants that arb money now, IMO it time to tell Theo to get the gold watch engraved

[ToeKneeArmAss]

Here is where they stand in the impasse: Varitek is asking for an annual salary close to the $10-12 million he would've made through arbitration, or a two-year deal for less annual salary. The Red Sox are willing to pay him much less than that, and don't feel they owe him extra cash for services rendered in the past, and they don't feel they owe it to him to offer a salary commensurate with what Varitek would've made if he had accepted arbitration.

This seems downright silly to me. Boras and Varitek in essence purchased an option to explore the free agent market. The cost of that option was declining arbitration. That option appears to have expired as worthless. Its purchase cost is no longer relevant.

Markets move. Conditions change, new information becomes available. The price at which buyers and sellers exchange goods and services fluctuates. That was then, this is now.

Let's move forward. I hope the current scenario sounds something like this - "Jason, the Red Sox are prepared to offer (let's say) $5 - 6MM for your services next season. We have reason to believe we are the highest bidder. We also have reason to believe that we value you more highly than any other team (because to sign you, any other team would need to relinquish draft picks, whereas we don't). Your move."

[leeharris]

You're just begging to be picked on aren't you?

But before people jump in and do that, maybe I can try another way to asnwer your question.

Think of it this way. Teams are always looking to improve. So long as the Sox see Varitek as a possible improvement to what they have now, and so long as he hasn't signed elsewhere or retired, he will be under their consideration. Now while it's possible at some point the Sox get tired of Tek's demands (whatever they are), I can't imagine they have any sort of drop dead date in mind.

picked on? That certainly cheered me up. You guys are hilarious at times, I'm not sure how intentional it is mind.

what the hell are you on about .I never said anything about the Sox considering him, I said, assuming they are actively in dialogue with him now (based on Henry's visit), at what point will they stop that and say to Terry Francona to get on with it with what he has, if that is just Day 1 of Spring Training then that's fine, that's what I am after.
I seriously look forward to being picked on by your finest and most rapier like minds.... LOL.