I think they had to nail down arbitration today. Extension is still in play and IMO most likely.
Arb discussions often lay groundwork for extensions later. Absolutely zero concern. There would be much more concern if they didn’t come to an agreement.
Agree strongly here. They just up and gave him $1m than the projection, but you're still "only" talking about Crochet having netted around $12m for his career if he doesn't get an extension. Which is a huge amount of money for most people, but his time as a relief pitcher is really keeping his arb awards down.
So they seem indeed to have gone over with the $3.95M. Hopefully a long-term deal follows soon.
100% agree with the bolded. Projections are usually guesswork and no team or player likely looks at them let alone uses them in negotiations. But they typically come fairly close so ending up that far above projection suggests the team wasn't digging in on some hardline stance to nickel and dime him. Easy to take that as a sign that they know a 500K-1M difference this year is inconsequential if they intend to extend him soon anyway.
Typically yes, if the new contract doesn't tear up and replace the existing contract.
I believe the key factor is if the extension is signed after Opening Day, right? Or am I remembering wrong?
That was the old CBA.
Supposedly they just started talking. I'm sure they'll need time to get it done, he's an unusual extension candidate with his high ceiling, young age, and/but lack of track record.
It may not have any relevance to those two, but to be fair, they probably shouldn't be focused on extending at least Crawford anyway.
I looked it up and indeed, the projections are based on a model that is simpler than what the players and teams actually do, which is find individual comps for every player. So yeah, the projections are kind of rough estimates. I don't know how seriously the players take them; but I guess they are well-known enough in the industry that people like Cotillo throw them around.
Less than what? A number derived mostly from guesswork? I expect what it is is the way the business works. Crochet is an arb-2 who had a better year than either of them, and they're arb-1s to boot. That Houck is making more than Crochet is actually kind of impressive.
I’d actually be very shocked if that’s the case. They were under the tax threshold this past year, so the penalties of going over this year is basically nothing.
Or the estimate was broken in Crochet's case because he went from a reliever pre arb to an ace his arb 1 season so they just ignored it (if they even look at them)
Certainly possible. Either way, I think we agree with the general overall point.
Yes, basically the bolded. They should be aligning their decision to whatever increases the likelihood of a deal.
I think we’re either thinking about this differently or my statement sacrificed clarity for concision, so allow me to clarify:
Clarity is king. I also want this, and as it's in line with what ownership has done in the past, I think it's reasonable to assume that's what they're doing now.
They couldn't close a $500,000 gap? For a player who just had a MVP-type season?
The penalties for going over the first threshold of the luxury tax do not impact a team's ability to build a roster at all. Not at all. The team does not lose draft picks for going over the first threshold. The team does not lose international bonus pool money. All the team loses is a relatively insignificant portion of its profits. That's it.
Yuck.
Apparently these are blind offers?
We need all the extra pennies we can spare to pay Patrick Sandoval $9M not to pitch.
It seems misleadingly phrased by Merloni, like of course they’re blind bids (doesn’t seem like the right term) until the other party sees them. But then there must be some time to try to agree before today, otherwise how would so many agreements be reached today?
Right. Although wasn't' there a case where a player submitted a lower number than the team?
https://www.mlb.com/news/arbitration-hearings-have-proved-memorable-c265840126
I don't think it's misleading by Merloni at all. The numbers submitted to the arbiter are not necessarily the figures the team and agent have been discussing to this point. They're just the numbers that each side has the most confidence in winning in arbitration (which could be higher or lower than what they've discussed with each other). Now that they've seen the numbers and how close they are, chances are they'll settle somewhere in the middle before the arbitration process actually happens.
This is true. And I believe they can continue to negotiate and come to an agreement before the hearing is held.
According to this article, the Sox did exactly that with Devers in 2022:
Thanks for that, it’s comforting.
Seems to me like it's working well in this case--I'd be pretty surprised if it got to a hearing. FO and agent can screw around as long as they like trying to get an edge in negotiations, but when push comes to shove a final number becomes pretty obvious.
I mean, I think they'll settle pretty soon. They're not going to fight over this.
