Arbitration Deadline

by JD Arney on Dec 1, 2006 10:16 PM EST in News

Just saw a note on Marc's blog that the deadline for team's to offer arbitration is midnight tonight. So we'll know in a couple of hours if the Reds offer arbitration to Aurilia and Weathers. I think they'd be smart to offer it on Aurilia, but we'll see. I'll have updates when we find something out.

Marc also had a note hinting at the possibility that Castellini is willing to spend. Wouldn't it be something if the Reds ended up with a big name after guys like John Fay completely dismissed the possibility?

Update: Krivsky offers to Rich Aurilia and Scott Schoeneweis, not to David Weathers. Seems like a pretty good chance that the Reds will get a couple of picks out of these two, and my guess is that the Reds will try pretty hard to sign Weathers, but we'll see.

Tweet Comment 22 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Arbitration

Aurilia made $1.3 mil last year. I can't see any concievable way we don't offer him arbitration (unless Krivsky is even more incompetent than I thought). Weathers made $1.5 mil last year, so I imagine he'll also be offered. Schoenweis made $2.75 mil last year so he might be more of a risk, but I imagine with Boras as his agent he wouldn't take arbitration, plus he had a 4.88 ERA and a WHIP of 1.39, so he wouldn't be due for much of a raise even if he did accept arbitration. Honestly, I think all three guys are looking at multi-year deals from other teams anyways, so it would be quite wise to offer all three arbitration. Weathers and Aurilia are no-doubters, and with the state of the market as it is, I'm not so sure Schoenweis at $3 mil for one year would be a bad deal even if he did accept it.

by Geki on Dec 1, 2006 10:31 PM EST reply actions

comp picks

If we don't offer arb do we not get draft pick compensation for Weathers and Aurilia, who are type A?

And who's left to spend money on? Lilly and Meche?

by Red Menace on Dec 1, 2006 10:41 PM EST reply actions

No offer = No comp

As for who's left...there's not much.

Lilly's out there, but the Cubs offered him 4 years and the Yankees are involved. Meche is out there, but he'll probably want whatever Lilly gets (not to mention we already have him under a different name - Kyle Lohse). Suppan, Marquis, Weaver, Ohka, Padilla, Armas, Redman, and Thomson are the best of the (concievable for us to get) rest - not exactly an inspiring group. I'm all aboard the Miguel Batista for closer train, but I suppose he could also be used as a starter. The starters market sucks balls, though I did catch this on RotoWorld earlier today:

If the Reds can't acquire another starter, Homer Bailey likely will have a chance to compete for a rotation spot in spring training.
If the Reds can't acquire another starter, GM Wayne Krivsky will have had a truly awful winter. Right now, the Reds have Eric Milton and Kyle Lohse behind Bronson Arroyo and Aaron Harang. Brandon Claussen, Matt Belisle and Elizardo Ramirez would also be in the mix for the fifth spot. "With Homer, he's going to come to spring training, he's going to get a chance to pitch some, and we'll see what happens," manager Jerry Narron said. "I know the smart thing to do would be probably to get him some time at Triple-A and go from there, but I think all of us will be open-minded about it. But definitely, no question, we want to do what's best for the long-term."

by Geki on Dec 1, 2006 10:52 PM EST up reply actions

starters

I don't agree with that awful winter quote at all. I had no idea Krivsky was charged by anyone with getting a starter this offseason. For the upteenth time, our starting pitching is the team strength.

by Red Menace on Dec 1, 2006 11:14 PM EST up reply actions

Fucking Krivsky.

The Reds have offered salary arbitration to Rich Aurilia and Scott Schoeneweis, but did not offer it to David Weathers, Kent Mercker or Eddie Guardado.

Since Aurilia and Schoeneweis seem certain to sign elsewhere, this pretty much ensures the Reds of grabbing a couple of draft picks. The other three all have a chance to come back in one form or fashion, with Weathers a definite possibility.

It makes no sense to not offer it to Weathers. Either he comes back for one year at a reasonable price (win) or we get a supplemental 1st rounder for him and another pick (win). Now we either re-sign him to a multi-year deal (unnecessary risk, possible lose) or don't re-sign him at all and get nothing for him.

by Geki on Dec 2, 2006 12:27 AM EST reply actions

Arbitration

I have a question about this. Say we offered Weathers arbitration and he declined, do we still have the same rights as every other team to sign him as a free agent or does the fact that we offered him arbitration change anything?

by Stevo154 on Dec 2, 2006 2:40 AM EST reply actions

Yes

Yes, still could sign him even if he declined.

Rootin' the Reds home.

by sweaver on Dec 2, 2006 9:23 AM EST reply actions

Last year

we wouldn't have been able to sign him until May 1 (what the Astros did with Clemens), but under the new labor agreement that was dropped.

by ken on Dec 2, 2006 1:29 PM EST up reply actions

the naked eye

I don't get Stormy. At one point last season he looked ready to be put out to pasture, then...Wham-o! He turns into the hottest reliever on the ballclub.

He knows how to pitch, but my gut says his stuff will betray him in the near future.

by fletch @ Red Reporter on Dec 2, 2006 9:50 AM EST reply actions

Aurilia

Hal McCoy is writing that we likely may have Rich back. Says the 7million/ 2year deal with S.F. was contingent on his not being offered arbitration and that Rich thinks he can get more by going to arb.--which may well be true. Also, S.F. Chronicle is reporting that Feliz is about to re-sign with them, which may mean no Rich. Lots of SF posters, anyway, were hoping getting Rich meant the end of sub-300 OBP Feliz.

by HokieRed on Dec 2, 2006 11:07 AM EST reply actions

Uh, oh

From the DDN:

Aurilia was considering a two-year, $7 million offer from San Francisco but told the Giants he would sign only if he wasn't offered arbitration.

By accepting arbitration, Aurilia believes he can win more than $3.5 million for 2007 in a binding arbitration case.

Now, this isn't necessarily a bad thing; a platoon of Hatte/Aurilia has the potential of being a good thing (as long as a 37 year old and a 35 year old suffer no decline...). Aurilia would also offer a RH bat off the bench, and can play any of the IF positions after pinch-hitting.

But....this has disaster written all over it. Aurilia signs; pisses and moans about playing time; Narron starts giving "regular rest" to EE, AGon, and BP; EE and/or BP start regressing becasue they aren't playing everyday; one loses his starting position to "veteran presence"; the team starts tanking; Krivsky panics and trades Harang and Arroyo for the rotting husk of Edgardo Alfonzo.

Mark my words: This will end in disaster for the Reds.

by sidnancy on Dec 2, 2006 11:09 AM EST reply actions

the alternative

I'm ok with the Bad Man coming back. He gives depth to 2B/3B should BP/EE get hurt. He'll certainly play a capable 1B vs LHP.

The farm system is barren so I'd prefer not to lose anyone with a heartbeat.

by fletch @ Red Reporter on Dec 2, 2006 11:24 AM EST up reply actions

If you were managing the club....

Aurilia would be a guy who gives depth to 2B/3B. With Narron at the helm, he gets 500 AB's at the expense of EE and Phillips, batting cleanup ahead of Dunn.

The reason I don't want Aurilia back has nothing to do with Aurilia. It has everything to do with Narron.

"Karma - there it was. The meaning of life, straight from Carson Daly's lips to my morphine-laced ears." -Earl Hickey

by BLee2525 on Dec 2, 2006 11:34 AM EST up reply actions

FWIW, my thoughts on this

I have no idea if this is what Krivisky is thinking,.... but if Aurilia is resigned to a one year $3.5M deal, and he has a decent first half, he is very tradeable in June.

I don't know what plans they have for Aurilia but I don't mind him back on the club at all. Hopefully Narron will not use him over EE at 3rd base and instead make him a back up infielder and Right handed option to Hatteberg at 1B. I did not think Aurilia would find that an acceptable role on the team, but if he accepts arbitration I think we can take that as a signal that he is resigned to being the #5 infielder.

The Weather's thing, that is hard to understand. I wonder what Krivisky is thinking? I don't think Krivisky is a good evaluator of players, but he does seem pretty up on working the player control system. It seems odd he would make a mistake in that part of his job. My initial thought is that Krivisky doesn't want Weathers back at the rate he will receive in arbitration. He is trying to bring Weathers back on the cheap. If so, this could really backfire on the Reds. Maybe Krivisky thinks Weathers shot his last bolt last year and will go all Hammondesque next year. Seems like an odd place to take a risk, potentially letting go of one of the Reds few decent bullpen arms.

by James Quinn on Dec 2, 2006 12:30 PM EST up reply actions

Stupid.

They offered Arbitration to Aurilia and Schoeneweis, but did not offer arbitration to Weathers.

How in the hell do you not offer arbitration to Weathers? He's a Type-A FA in a thin market for relief pitching. Worst case, he accepts and you get a solid reliever for about $3 mil for next year. Best (and most likely case), he declines, signs somewhere else, and you get 2 draft picks for a guy you didn't plan on re-signing anyway.

I think the most telling part, however, was my reaction to the news. My first thought was not "Why he hell do you not offer arbitration to Weathers?" My first thought was "Thank god they offered arbitration to Aurilia." I wasn't mad that he screwed up tremendously, I was just relieved that he didn't screw it up entirely.

"Karma - there it was. The meaning of life, straight from Carson Daly's lips to my morphine-laced ears." -Earl Hickey

by BLee2525 on Dec 2, 2006 11:20 AM EST reply actions

Weathers

I, too, was surprised they didn't offer Weathers. It either means they really don't want him back, period, or that they want him back with a contract of 2 years minimum at less per year than he might get in arb.--and that Weathers' agent may have told K that offering arb. would be rejected and also guarantee Stormy signed elsewhere. K might be thinking, too, that if some of our young guys come along and we want to move Weathers during the season, a well-defined 2 year contract would be attractive to a trading partner.
We may well have Rich and Weathers back.

by HokieRed on Dec 2, 2006 11:45 AM EST up reply actions

None of those reasons

justify not offering Weathers arbitration. In fact, most of them would strengthen the case.

Weathers's agent tells Krivsky that arbitration will be declined, and he signs elsewhere - FANTASTIC. This would guarantee my best case scenario.
Wants to sign him to a 2-year contract - Why in the hell would you want to give an extra year to a 40-year old bullpen arm? Especially since we've already given extra years to 2 other 40-year old bullpen arms.

Hey, whoever's driving the "Fire Krivsky" bandwagon, I'd appreciate it if you could make a stop by Arlington, VA in the next few days. With his track record thus far, and the winter meetings coming up, I get the feeling I'll be ready to take a seat there real soon. I'll bring the beer.

"Karma - there it was. The meaning of life, straight from Carson Daly's lips to my morphine-laced ears." -Earl Hickey

by BLee2525 on Dec 2, 2006 12:31 PM EST up reply actions

Not true

First of all, I'm not saying what I would have done. I don't want Weathers back at all, but then I don't want Cormier or Stanton either. I'd go with younger guys, take our beating, and try to be better in a couple years. I'm just assuming Krivsky knows at least what he's trying to do and understand how it might have come down.
Not offering Weathers means either 1. They don't want him back but were afraid he'd accept arb. and they'd have to have him back; or 2. They do want him back but not for one year and not at the arbitration figure--2 years for 5, say, rather than 3 million for 1. The reason they'd do this is that, as you say in your earlier, post, he's a solid reliever and the market is weak.

by HokieRed on Dec 2, 2006 12:42 PM EST up reply actions

It's always"a couple of years"

I'm tired of "a couple of years." When Griffey was signed, it was "a couple of years." When they built the new ballpark, it was "a couple of years." A couple of years has been a decade now.

winter is boooooooring

by Daedalus on Dec 2, 2006 2:53 PM EST up reply actions

Couple years

If somebody had decided 7 or 8 years ago--as, in my view, they should--that the organization had to be rebuilt and the pitching improved from within, we wouldn't have the problems we have now. O'Brien told the truth about how long it would take. Krivsky got lucky and the Reds were no better last year than the year before--the league was worse. Everybody gives Krivsky credit for making a great deal with Arroyo, but remember he traded Wily Mo Pena. Anything less than Arroyo would have put the trade on a par with The Trade.

by HokieRed on Dec 2, 2006 3:23 PM EST up reply actions

Aurilia: 2 years, $8 mil to sign with the Giants

Reported by Ken Rosenthal and Jerry Crasnick.

That means we'll get a supplemental 1st and the Giants 2nd, I believe.

by Geki on Dec 2, 2006 1:26 PM EST reply actions

weathers to phillies?

"With the Reds not offering right-handed reliever David Weathers salary arbitration, it could clear the final hurdle to his signing with the Phillies. The Philadelphia Inquirer reported on Saturday that it was unlikely the Phils would continue their pursuit of Weathers, a Type A free agent, if it would cost them a first-round draft choice."

from mlb.com

winter is boooooooring

by Daedalus on Dec 3, 2006 10:32 AM EST reply actions