Proceeds from the ads below will be donated to the
Bob Wuesthoff scholarship fund.
Wednesday, December 07, 2005 |
Dodgers, Angels Arbitration
The Angels have declined arbitration on Bengie Molina, Jarrod Washburn, Lou Merloni, and Jason Christiansen. Update: ... and apparently to Paul Byrd, according to MLB.com.
"It is the emergence of Mathis and right behind him Mike Napoli," Stoneman said of the cutting ties with Molina. "I didn't want to throw up a road block that would possibly impede Mathis or would impede Jose Molina," Bengie's brother who was his backup last season.So it was the fact that the Angels didn't want to lose Josh Paul from the roster? That makes no sense.
The Dodgers have offered arbitration to Jeff Weaver, declining it for Elmer Dessens, Darren Dreifort, Wilson Alvarez, Paul Bako, and Jose Valentin.
Comments:
"Why wouldn't you offer arb to Bengie?"
Ummm... because he might accept it?
Is Bengie Molina worth $4m for next season? Can the Angels even afford that with all their bad contracts? The answer to both is 'no', I think.
Ummm... because he might accept it?
Is Bengie Molina worth $4m for next season? Can the Angels even afford that with all their bad contracts? The answer to both is 'no', I think.
really surprised/disappointed about Molina. my one hope is that they're saving some money for a big fish like Manny or an arm.
Molina might have cost the Angels close to $8 million next year, which is a lot of dough and might have made it more difficult to add a big contract (such as Man-Ram's) to the payroll.
From what I read, though, the Angels DID offer arbitration to Byrd, inasmuch as he couldn't possibly accept. If they didn't offer it to Byrd, then I hereby take back every compliment I've ever given to Angels management.
From what I read, though, the Angels DID offer arbitration to Byrd, inasmuch as he couldn't possibly accept. If they didn't offer it to Byrd, then I hereby take back every compliment I've ever given to Angels management.
# posted by 
: 12/07/2005 08:42:00 PM
: 12/07/2005 08:42:00 PM
Arbitration means the Angels and Molina go before an arbitrator. Each submits a dollar number. The arbitrator picks one.
Let's say the Angels offer $6 million. Molina asks for $10 million. The arbitrator is feeling generous and gives Bengie the $10 million.
So then they're stuck paying $10 million that was intended to go elsewhere, Mathis is back in Triple-A, and they run the risk of paying a fat salary to an aging catcher with a recent history of repetitive hamstring injuries.
That's why they didn't offer arbitration.
Let's say the Angels offer $6 million. Molina asks for $10 million. The arbitrator is feeling generous and gives Bengie the $10 million.
So then they're stuck paying $10 million that was intended to go elsewhere, Mathis is back in Triple-A, and they run the risk of paying a fat salary to an aging catcher with a recent history of repetitive hamstring injuries.
That's why they didn't offer arbitration.
# posted by : 12/07/2005 08:45:00 PM
: 12/07/2005 08:45:00 PM
the thing that annoys me is that Bengie was in fact one of our most productive hitters last year? I get the idea that he could have been expensive, but it's annoying to lose someone who did actually chip in here and there with some hits.... and he has been pretty consistent over the years.
but hey - there are probably reasons why I'm not a Major League GM :)
but hey - there are probably reasons why I'm not a Major League GM :)
# posted by : 12/08/2005 01:32:00 AM
: 12/08/2005 01:32:00 AM
The decision to refuse arbitration to Bengie is almost indefensible. At worst, AT WORST, you're stuck with a one year contract, that would have been nowhere near $10MM, and probably not all that close to $8MM. Remember, the big problem with big contracts is almost never the money, and almost always the years. And honestly, I couldn't see Bengie getting a huge deal after presenting a case to the arbitrator. You could show side by side video of Bengie and a sloth, for one. You could also point out how the Angels had two pitchers, one a freaking reliever, among the tops in the league in wild pitches. If Bengie had submitted $10MM, he would have lost.
The problem with re-signing Bengie was going to be that it would have taken multiple years. I would have done it if he was willing to accept one year. Give Mathis a little more time (it's not like was out of this world this season), plus, at least one Molina is going to get hurt this season, if not both. Go back to carrying two catchers and bring Mathis up as needed.
This decision is almost indefensible.
The problem with re-signing Bengie was going to be that it would have taken multiple years. I would have done it if he was willing to accept one year. Give Mathis a little more time (it's not like was out of this world this season), plus, at least one Molina is going to get hurt this season, if not both. Go back to carrying two catchers and bring Mathis up as needed.
This decision is almost indefensible.
Seitz -- I disagree. Chalk this decision up to the moves to give Finley and Cabrera those big contracts.
I don't think those deals have anything to do with this decision. We're talking about at worst a one year hit, probably for less than either of what those guys are making, and then both the Molina and Finley contracts would come off the books next year.
You're telling me that a team that was will to take on five years of Konerko at 12-13 per can't take one year, or not even one year, but THE POSSIBILITY of one year, of Molina at half that? Sorry, not buyin' it.
You're telling me that a team that was will to take on five years of Konerko at 12-13 per can't take one year, or not even one year, but THE POSSIBILITY of one year, of Molina at half that? Sorry, not buyin' it.
Look, Seitz -- there was simply no way Bengie was going to provide anywhere near the offense that even a lame, slow, offensive-park-deprived Konerko would have. Bengie was a great catcher when he was operational, and gave good offense for his position, but he just wouldn't have provided 20-30 homers next year. End of story.
I'm not saying he would have, but I read your comment as saying they don't have room in the budget, and I think that's BS. I'm saying, I take the chance that I overpay for ONE FREAKING YEAR in exhchange for the possiblity of getting compensation if/when he signs somewhere else.
I simply see no downside to the worst case scenario. Especially considering it couldn't hurt for Mathis to spend another couple of months in AAA.
I simply see no downside to the worst case scenario. Especially considering it couldn't hurt for Mathis to spend another couple of months in AAA.
Also, wasn't Bengie a class A free agent. Wouldn't that mean two draft picks if he signed elsewhere?
# posted by : 12/08/2005 09:03:00 AM
: 12/08/2005 09:03:00 AM
That's partly true, Seitz, but
1) he won't provide corner outfielder levels of offense
2) if the Angels do get Manny, they'll need to clear salary space, and an easy way to do it would be to not offer Bengie arbitration.
1) he won't provide corner outfielder levels of offense
2) if the Angels do get Manny, they'll need to clear salary space, and an easy way to do it would be to not offer Bengie arbitration.
"Also, wasn't Bengie a class A free agent. Wouldn't that mean two draft picks if he signed elsewhere?"
True, but the market for Molina has all but disappears with the Mets and Arizona both finding their guys early. It was looking more and more like Molina was best off taking arbitration.
Seitz - I can't see past the simple fact that a) Molina isn't worth $6-8m, and b) Molina isn't worth $6-8m. Spend the money and make up the offensive difference elsewhere. God knows there's plenty of places to do it.
True, but the market for Molina has all but disappears with the Mets and Arizona both finding their guys early. It was looking more and more like Molina was best off taking arbitration.
Seitz - I can't see past the simple fact that a) Molina isn't worth $6-8m, and b) Molina isn't worth $6-8m. Spend the money and make up the offensive difference elsewhere. God knows there's plenty of places to do it.
Overpaying by not all that much for one year doesn't bother me. I can think of four guys off the top of my head that they're overpaying by a much wider margin, for multiple years, than they'd be overpaying Bengie for one, and those were all without the prospect of getting a draft pick in return.
This is just stupidity.
This is just stupidity.
Overpaying for what, though? You keep acting as though Molina's value were much greater than it was.
No I don't. I keep acting is if the risk of one year of a bad, but not awful, deal isn't that big of a risk when the downside is just that, one year. The upside of compensation is a lot better than the downside of one more year of Bengie, especially considering the guy to whom they're turning the job over isn't exactly banging down the door.
Newer› ‹Older
 |
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.