Harper and Nats headed to arb ruling hearing

[67WasBest]

Admittedly, likely reading too much into a report, but what the hell, until we get real news.
 
The Nats are about to have a very ugly arbitration hearing with Harper, Boras and Harper's parents.  There is a difference of opinion as to whether an opt out that would allow Harper to pursue arbitration offers was included in his contract.  It's an issue that goes back to when he signed because MLB had to send a letter, that was included with his contract that would allow a hearing if this time arrived.  Rosenthal asks why would they want to have this fight with a franchise player?  His question is more than valid and begs the question of what is it we don't know?  Are they thinking about dealing him and ridding themselves of the issue?  Would any team obtaining him be restructuring his deal?  His deal is 6 years at $9.9M now, he's missed a lot of time and he's a known douche.
 
Could the Nats be planning to walk away from this mess by trading him?  If so, Would the Sox have interest because he's left handed and Bryce freaking Harper and they have the pieces to get a deal done? 

 

[HriniakPosterChild]

begs the question of ...

Stay out of P&G for awhile, 67.

 

[67WasBest]

Stay out of P&G for awhile, 67.

I'm clearly bored with way too much time on m hands.

 

[Julius.R]

I doubt the Nationals would deal him, but the way they're acting they may as well get a king's ransom before he walks to the Yankees for $300M+ or some obscene number. If the Red Sox want him it would probably begin with 2 or 3 of Betts, Swihart, and Bogaerts. Plus they'd probably want us to take on some contracts they want to get rid of as well. They won't sell him low when his potential is sky high. If there was actually a deal which left our top prospects alone, I would drive to DC and pick up Harper in a clown suit. I would love to see him raking in Fenway against the Yankees, but we aren't getting him for a reasonable price.

 

[67WasBest]

 
I'm sorry, but above and beyond the fact that I think you are in fact reading too much into the report, that trade is beyond awful for WAS. That doesn't get the phone hung up it gets BC's phone number blocked. Ignoring where the Nats stand right now - and how much that would set them back - Harper is a top 5 player in the league as far as value is concerned. They are, on paper, the best team in baseball. They need a 2B (Rendon is moving to 3B for the next 10 years, as has been discussed and reasons given multiple times in various threads) and a couple bullpen arms. They're not moving their best pitcher and best position player for a 3B who's not ready and probably can't stay at 3B, an overrated LF on a one year deal, a SP who's not ready and a IFA they could have signed for money only a few months ago. Only to them have to move one of their 4 WAR OFs that are better than either of those being acquired. All to avoid an arbitration hearing with their 22 yo stud. 
 
As an aside, labeling Harper a "known douche" is extremely ignorant. His "douchedom" has been completely overblown and fabricated bullshit and has been documented as such by a lot of people here and on the national media level.  
 
That's a clown post, bro. 

I tried to delete the proposed deal and just leave the question before you replied...too late

 

[SumnerH]

I'm clearly bored with way too much time on m hands.

I think he was referring to the fact that "begs the question" is not a fancy way to say "raises the question"; it means something completely different and doesn't make sense in the context you used it in.

 

[67WasBest]

I think he was referring to the fact that "begs the question" is not a fancy way to say "raises the question"; it means something completely different and doesn't make sense in the context you used it in.

Fair critique.  Poor phrasing.
 
My reasoning for even posing the question, dismissing the fantastical trade offer, is the Nats are already wrestling with payroll issues for next year, with so many coming free agents.  If Harper gets his hoped for freedom to arbitrate, that could compromise their salary structure further.  I also don't understand why they wouldn't have found a better way to resolve this than going all the way to an arbitrator's hearing?

 

[mauf]

It isn't supposed to matter, but my impression is that players who are "super twos" earn more in their subsequent three years of arbitration than similar players who weren't arb-eligible heading into their third full season. I'm not sure if my impression is based on a study I read along the way, or something more flimsy than that.
 
The outcome of the grievance hearing doesn't seem like a foregone conclusion, so there's presumably some amount the Nats would be willing to pay to cover off that uncertainty. If the only amount at issue was Harper's 2015 salary, then like Rosenthal, I would expect the Nats to meet Boras/Harper more than halfway, for the sake of good relations. But if you assume that the higher 2015 salary will lead to higher salaries in 2016-18, then it's unlikely that any deal could be made that would be palatable to both sides, and the amount at stake is likely too much to sacrifice for the sake of good relations (particularly with a Boras client who is likely hell-bent on reaching free agency).

 

[Max Power]

 
I'm sorry, but above and beyond the fact that I think you are in fact reading too much into the report, that trade is beyond awful for WAS. That doesn't get the phone hung up it gets BC's phone number blocked. Ignoring where the Nats stand right now - and how much that would set them back - Harper is a top 5 player in the league as far as value is concerned.

 
That's just not true. There's no measure you could possibly come up with that would place Harper as a top 5 player in the league in either absolute value or relative value to his contract. Harper and Trout both came up at the same time and people seem to think they're roughly equivalent players. Harper has been very good for someone his age, but he's been neither healthy nor among the handful of best players in his league.

 

[Wingack]

 
That's just not true. There's no measure you could possibly come up with that would place Harper as a top 5 player in the league in either absolute value or relative value to his contract. Harper and Trout both came up at the same time and people seem to think they're roughly equivalent players. Harper has been very good for someone his age, but he's been neither healthy nor among the handful of best players in his league.

 
Still a horrendous trade offer that was proposed.

 

[BoSox Rule]

I would trade everybody for Harper.  Look at the career he has had so far, imagine him staying healthy, and remember the fact that he has never faced a pitcher younger than him since he was drafted, and probably since High School (where you know, he dropped out early and then went on to hit 31 HR with a wooden bat in JuCo)

 

[HriniakPosterChild]

I think he was referring to the fact that "begs the question" is not a fancy way to say "raises the question"; it means something completely different and doesn't make sense in the context you used it in.

 
Exactly.

 

[67WasBest]

 
Exactly.

Point understood.  I don't profess to be much of a writer, but I know better than that.

 

[grimshaw]

As far as trade value goes, you'll have to convince me otherwise. He was a five WAR player at 19. He's entering his age 22 season with four years of control left and whether he and Boras win their arb dispute or not he's cheap.

I'm on my phone but here's two articles that lay it out.

Rated #4 by Cameron at Fangraphs. http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/2014-trade-value-the-top-10/

Rated #2 by Keri at Grantland http://grantland.com/features/rating-players-contracts-major-league-baseball-part-2/

Whether you want to quibble about top 5 or top 10, that's up to you. Either way they're not trading him without a huge package. If you're talking sox it's Betts, X, and Swihart. Then probably another cpl top 20 guys. He is an unrealistic target.

I'd be interested to hear the list of who you think has more trade value and see how you get to five, let alone ten above him.

Edit: sorry, the Keri piece was a year old. He bumped him down to #3 this year http://grantland.com/features/mlb-trade-value-rankings-part-2/

This isn't just you, but I don't get why people keep saying anyone is going to be worth 3 top 25 prospects.  Bogaerts was on that contract list at #23 and I'm willing to bet Betts is going to be on that list and Swihart is knocking on the door.  All of those guys are 22 and under and cost controlled for as long or longer than Harper.  Owens is the #11 prospect right now as well and is also under 22.  All of them have reached AAA several years ahead of the age curve.  No one is worth that much in a trade (aside from Trout who is way way ahead of everyone else).  The Red Sox wouldn't offer it for anyone anyhow.  Two of them maybe, but not all three of them + another couple top 20 guys.  These guys aren't just throw ins, they are A-/B+ level guys which are really effing rare.  It's why teams keep asking for them and the Red Sox keep saying no. 
 
I get that Harper has been primed as the greatest player ever, but look who his agent is and how he has performed so far.  See also, Stephen Strasburg who also hasn't been a generational talent but was touted that way by the same agent.
 
It is very very unlikely he'd be moved, but not because the Red Sox couldn't come up with a package for him.  The Cubs could too because of how stacked they are with high end talent.

 

[GilaMonster]

This isn't just you, but I don't get why people keep saying anyone is going to be worth 3 top 25 prospects.  Bogaerts was on that contract list at #23 and I'm willing to bet Betts is going to be on that list and Swihart is knocking on the door.  All of those guys are 22 and under and cost controlled for as long or longer than Harper.  Owens is the #11 prospect right now as well and is also under 22.  All of them have reached AAA several years ahead of the age curve.  No one is worth that much in a trade (aside from Trout who is way way ahead of everyone else).  The Red Sox wouldn't offer it for anyone anyhow.  Two of them maybe, but not all three of them + another couple top 20 guys.  These guys aren't just throw ins, they are A-/B+ level guys which are really effing rare.  It's why teams keep asking for them and the Red Sox keep saying no. 
 
I get that Harper has been primed as the greatest player ever, but look who his agent is and how he has performed so far.  See also, Stephen Strasburg who also hasn't been a generational talent but was touted that way by the same agent.
 
It is very very unlikely he'd be moved, but not because the Red Sox couldn't come up with a package for him.  The Cubs could too because of how stacked they are with high end talen

 
 
I'm personally much more curious on Strasburg. He has 2 years of team control and is a Boras guy, so we can write off an extension. Instead of trying to trade Zimemrmann or Fister, perhaps the Nats should explore trying to extend them and deal Strasburg instead. If you could get a Betts,Miller, or Ackley, I might not be entirely convinced that deal Strasburg hurts your chance of contending in 2015 that much. Especially with A.J. Cole pretty much major league ready. And Lucas Giolito is on his way to being Strasburg 2.0 and 80-grade Fastball AND Curveball with a 70 grade changeup.

 

[Kremlin Watcher]

Harper skipped a team function today, further damaging the relationship.
 
Can anyone explain Harper's grievance and what grounds he has (or may have or thinks he has) for annulling a valid contract? Is it just that he thinks he is underpaid? Because that seems like a very weak argument.

 

[Hank Scorpio]

Harper skipped a team function today, further damaging the relationship.
 
Can anyone explain Harper's grievance and what grounds he has (or may have or thinks he has) for annulling a valid contract? Is it just that he thinks he is underpaid? Because that seems like a very weak argument.

 
 

 
Harper’s five-year major league draft contract, signed at the last minute before the deadline in August 2010, muddles whether he can become eligible for arbitration. Major league draft contracts are no longer allowed, but when they were, almost all of them included an opt-out clause that allowed players to enter the arbitration process rather than take the salary prescribed in their draft deal.
Given the choice, Harper would opt out of the deal and into arbitration. His draft deal stipulates he will earn $1.5 million in base salary in 2015. In arbitration, Harper would make around $2.5 million, according to estimates made at MLBTradeRumors.com.
But whether Harper can choose is in dispute. The Nationals contend that an opt-out clause was not included in Harper’s contract. Harper’s agent, Scott Boras, claims the Nationals orally agreed to include the clause at the midnight deadline in 2010.
MLB and the Players Association stepped in with a solution: If Harper accrued enough service time to become eligible for arbitration, the matter would be decided by a grievance hearing unless the sides could settle.

 
Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/nationals-journal/wp/2014/12/01/nationals-bryce-harper-could-land-in-grievance-hearing-this-month/

 

[doc]

 
For those unfamiliar with the situation, here’s a quick recap: After Harper was drafted in 2010, he reached an oral agreement on a five-year major league contract with the Nationals just minutes before the signing deadline. The Nationals were adamant that the contract wouldn’t include an opt-out if Harper qualified for arbitration during the deal, but Harper’s agent, Scott Boras, was under the impression that the opt-out would be included in the contract. When Boras eventually received the formal contract from the Nationals, the opt-out was not included in the deal and Harper refused to sign it. The MLBPA soon stepped in with a compromise, stating that if Harper qualified for arbitration during the deal, there would be a grievance hearing regarding the opt-out clause.
To be clear, this opt-out is strictly about arbitration. He’s still under team control through 2018 no matter what.

 
http://hardballtalk.nbcsports.com/2014/12/12/bryce-harpers-grievance-hearing-against-the-nationals-is-scheduled-for-tuesday/

 

[Kremlin Watcher]

Thanks.

 

[mauf]

We talk a lot about athletes and their sense of entitlement, but this case illustrates that clubs act like entitled douchebags too.

One of the consequences of the Nats not paying Harper is that he's not obliged to attend their holiday season-ticket holder circle-jerk, because he's not under contract. I think the Nats are right to press this issue, but it's silly for them to think Harper still ought to do the things that a player under contract would do.

 

[canderson]

There's a history here, though. Harper has always been pricksh to the Nats, refusing minor league events, skipping BP, rumors of mutinies against coaches. He told me he didn't care for fans when we saw him walking to his driver while he was here in AA. Washington tries quite hard to be as fan-friendly as possibly so the two were at odds off the bat.

This relationship won't end well.

 

[sean1562]

he is gonna look really good in that yankees uniform when he hits FA. I dont think the nats are going to be strapped for cash this offseason because I really dont see them assuming that in the end they are gonna need loads of payroll space for bryce harper. He is a Scott Boras client, he will hit FA in his 20s and the Yankees will be free of many of their albatross contracts. The nats would be wise to resign Jordan Zimmermann without worrying about how it will affect their chances to sign harper long term. 

 

[Apisith]

Yeah, and he's going to hit a ton of HRs at Yankee Stadium, too. The timing will be just right for the Yankees to throw $300m at him.

 

[mauf]

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. He is under contract. That's the dispute. Not paying him? Do you mean not "showing him get money" or literally withholding checks?

I think it looks pretty bad on both sides and I don't think it makes them douchebags for expecting him to show. I imagine these guys have standard clauses in their contracts that stipulate X amount of team events they must attend, no?

He isn't a free agent, but he hasn't signed his contract for the upcoming year. It's the whole "do unto others" thing -- the Nats are holding Harper to the letter of the law, so they shouldn't expect him to do otherwise. If Harper being at this event was important to the Nats, they should've taken that into account in their handling of the grievance.

Of course, Harper's presence wasn't that important -- the Nats just wanted to make him look bad in their fans' eyes. Judging by the comments here, it sounds like they succeeded. That's some great marketing, folks.

 

[CaptainLaddie]

edit wrong thread.

 

[67WasBest]

 
WASHINGTON — Nationals general manager Mike Rizzo said that club was "disappointed" that outfielder Bryce Harper did not show up Saturday at the NatsFest fan festival.
In a statement emailed by one of his agent's employees, Harper said: "I have attended NatsFest each year and always enjoy my experience with the fans, but was unable to attend this year's event due to matters out of my control. I look forward to next year's NatsFest."
The Major League Baseball Players Association has filed a grievance on Harper's behalf over whether he should able to void the 2015 terms in the final season of a $9.9 million, five-year contract he signed when drafted. An arbitrator hearing could happen next week if the case isn't settled.
"We're disappointed he's not here, but he chose not to be here because of the grievance," Rizzo said.
The GM said he couldn't discuss the grievance because it's "a legal matter."
Outfielder Jayson Werth met with fans Saturday but, unlike other players present, did not speak to the media.
"That was my decision," Rizzo said.
Werth was convicted this month of reckless driving and sentenced to 10 days in jail

http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/
 
I'm starting to believe they are now more than 50/50 to deal him once the hearing determines his cost for the next 3 to 4 years.  His ongoing self absorbed behavior (his recent no show excluded), combined with the Werth arrest, and year after year failure to reach the World Series is a pretty solid set of reasons why Rizzo might want to blow it up in search of a new mix.  Do it now before he faces 6 FAs at the end of the year and has to start over with only draft picks.  I'd think the Dodgers look like a logical match.  They've made moves to clear the position with the Kemp trade and they have the trade chips to offer.  If they had a deal in place where the chips changed slightly, based on the result of the hearing, that would offer even greater clarity as to their motivations on the Kemp deal.  The Harper name fits the Showtime model Magic knows best.

 

[NDame616]

http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/
 
I'm starting to believe they are now more than 50/50 to deal him once the hearing determines his cost for the next 3 to 4 years.  His ongoing self absorbed behavior (his recent no show excluded), combined with the Werth arrest, and year after year failure to reach the World Series is a pretty solid set of reasons why Rizzo might want to blow it up in search of a new mix.  Do it now before he faces 6 FAs at the end of the year and has to start over with only draft picks.  I'd think the Dodgers look like a logical match.  They've made moves to clear the position with the Kemp trade and they have the trade chips to offer.  If they had a deal in place where the chips changed slightly, based on the result of the hearing, that would offer even greater clarity as to their motivations on the Kemp deal.  The Harper name fits the Showtime model Magic knows best.

 
I don't see them trading him, and I certainly don't see Harper's cost in arbitration being a deciding factor. If he's healthy, whatever his cost at arbitration could be 25-50% of his actual worth. I also don't see what the Werth arrest has to do with them signing Harper.
 
Will they sign hi to a 10 year deal tomorrow? No. But I don't see them trading him anytime soon. 

 

[67WasBest]

 
I don't see them trading him, and I certainly don't see Harper's cost in arbitration being a deciding factor. If he's healthy, whatever his cost at arbitration could be 25-50% of his actual worth. I also don't see what the Werth arrest has to do with them signing Harper.
 
Will they sign hi to a 10 year deal tomorrow? No. But I don't see them trading him anytime soon. 

There was talk last week at the meeting the Nats were working on a blow the roof off trade.  The only reason to trade him is to gain surety for the 2016 squad.  If they can get his replacement in Pedrson, and the SS replacement for Desmond in Seager, they can probably extend Zimmermann.  The only connection of Werth to Harper is the idea of the roster needing a shakeup.  I just found the comments of Rizzo to be stronger than we usually see from a GM and maybe indicated a direction away from him.

 

[Comeback Kid]

 

Nationals signed OF Bryce Harper to a two-year contract extension.
 

The agreement will prevent a grievance hearing (scheduled for Tuesday) that would have determined whether Harper could become eligible for salary arbitration. He is entering the final year of the five-year, $9.9 million contract that he signed with the Nats after being drafted in 2010. But he has enough service time already to qualify as a Super Two player, thus the confusion. Harper will still have two years of arbitration eligibility when this new two-year agreement runs out. He can become a free agent after the 2018 season
 

Ken Rosenthal (via Rotoworld)
 
Edit: Extension is worth $7.5MM.

 

[MakMan44]

Smart decision on both sides.

 

[dcmissle]

Can we stop with this now? The rumored "blockbuster" involved Desmond and Zimmerman to the Mariners for Walker and Miller. And the Mariners reportedly said "no."

Harper is tied to this franchise for 4 more years, and even if Rizzo deems him gone, I don't imagine they would even think about trading him until after the 2016 season, maybe later. And even then, he will demand your very best prospects because that's how Rizzo rolls. And at that, you'd still have to risk losing him to the Yankees because if there is anything certain in this life, it is that Harper WILL hit FA.

Dreams die hard, but it's really time to give up the ghost on this one.