If you know you're driving don't drink. You know you're drinking hire a service, get a cab, use a designated driver or stay the hell home. I have no idea how much money this ass-hat makes or has but people who make or have made a hell of a lot less money than him manage to do those things. My suspicion then is it's not the money, it's his attitude. Well screw him.
2 If it turns out he was operating under the influence I hope they hammer the crap out of him. A couple of years in a max security Florida prison will do the "King" a world of good. Too bad all they can nail him on is DUI Manslaughter; 2nd degree murder sounds a lot better better on these DUI death cases. If he was at fault and loaded maybe they can coble a Vehicular Homicide charge together, that should hit harder than DUI Manslaughter.
Terrible. He will do jail time.
Funny, how the press all cry about the loss of 'integrity' in baseball, but don't take a good look at our current administration and big business leaders. Congress will get all uppity at Steroids, while alcohol continues to kill more then all the other drugs put together.
Driving drunk is a crapshoot. Tony LaRussa does it and he gets a standing ovation when he returns to Cardinals spring training. Leyritz will likely get jail for a considerable amount of time for killing someone with his negligence. Don't drink and drive. It's very bad.
788 I'd like to see Congress haul LaRussa's ass, and the Cardinals' ownership, and Selig and the other commishes, before a Congressional committee, to explain why they penalize players for failing a PED test, but let those who drink and drive (LaRussa, Leonard Little, etc) get off virtually scot-free.
Only seven comments before the thread turns into a rant about PEDs. Yes, I think that MLB should take a more active stance on a former player who violated a law unrelated baseball, than to players who violate league rules and thus (may) compromise the competitive landscape of the sport. Yep, the media never complains about the current administration or big business. And while they're at it, sports journalists in particular need to get off their high horse about steroids, and focus more on world affairs, the president, global warming, etc.
11 I think it's an entirely apropos comment. It's not about PEDs per se, it's about the shameful way that MLB has winked at alcoholism and drunk driving. The self-righteousness about PEDs just serves to highlight the hypocrisy that much more.
MLB should wink at DWI and alcoholism--or rather, they should not be much interested in it at all. It's off the field, outside the lines. Frankly, MLB should not concern itself much with DWI or marital disputes or players' dabbling in pornography or the like. Instead, they SHOULD concern themselves with steroids and spitballs and corked bats and and bean balls and other activities that pertain to rules and competition on the field.
alcohol is no joke I've had issues with it & believe me when I tell you that it's hell on earth when you suffer from a serious alcohol problem, one can only hope Leyritz gets & WANTS the help he needs.
7 OldYanksFan, you're repeated political statements and insinuations are pretty annoying. There is no need to make statements against corporations, "business leaders", the current or past administrations, Congress, or anyone else.
Frankly, you sometimes hog these forums with your beliefs.
15 Sorry to impose on you. However, this thread is not about baseball but about what happened to a player outside of baseball. And for what it's worth, Bud Selig is a 'business' leader, and with the steroids issue, congress has been and continues to be involved in MLB. Baseball does not exist in a vacuum.
13 Of course, in the period covered by the Mitchell report, baseball rules regarded steroids only as illegal drugs. Their effect on performance was irrelevant to the rules.
McGwire's use of andro, for example, was not against the rules.
How did we slide from a DUI death resulting to the Mitchell report?
Leyritz connections with Greenies and HGH could be, but they, too, detour us from the tragedy. A loss of a young mother, leaving a family that will never be the same. And his unalterable change of direction which will leave him and his children and family scarred forever.
Very sad regardless of its connection to baseball.
19 "You don't think alcoholism affects competition on the field? "
Players not taking care of themselves (whether it's through drinking too much or staying up too late playing video games) is qualitatively different from players contravening the game's rules, and I would like to think you know that. If anything, such activities would be a team matter, not a league matter.
18 No, baseball does not exist in a vacuum. But your repeated political diatribes go well beyond the boundaries. For example, what does the Bush administration have to do with baseball, aside from the President being a former owner? In the context of Jim Leyritz's tragic DUI: nothing. Nor does it have anything to do with the Mitchell report (per 22 ).
At least as far as this long-time reader/poster is concerned, the quality of discussion on this board has gone down since you became so prolific and widely focused in your posts.
24 Both have to to with the maintaining the "integrity" of the game (understandably to varying degrees), whatever that's supposed to mean.
Anyway, my issue has more to do with the way alcohol is perceived, as well as the lack of penalties for a DWI/DUI. A 30 year old mother lost her life. And maybe Leyritz'll get a couple of years, maybe a few months, of time, along with probation and/or community service.
It isn't the first time it's happened with someone caught (famous or not), nor will it be the last.
WRT the game, I understand that MLB cannot do anything about it (DWI & alcoholism), but winking and nodding at it is unacceptable. Especially when alcohol is served at every ballpark, and assumingly in every clubhouse. Teams can't do anything about it either.
I'm not asking for a return to prohibition, but something needs to be done regarding drunk driving. But like I said before, this isn't so much a MLB issue than an US issue.
Nothing can be done, and nothing will be done. Human desire cannot and will not be regulated or legislated.
26 i'd hope that human desire can be regulated at least by one's self. it's so easy to not drink when you are driving. but people do it all the time. friends, parents, tv characters, baseball players, senators, everyone. it has little to do with baseball unless like you say mlb is actually giving out drinks and letting people drive home afterwards. that would be very irresponsible.
as an aside, the leyritz home run was the most exciting turning point in any yankees series i've seen.
I know this really isn't the issue and I hate to insult the deceased lady, but man, wear your seatbelt. I know two people under 20 who both died in car accidents that other passengers walked out of because they weren't wearing their belts. I don't know that she would have survived here, but generally you're safer in the vehicle than you are flying out of it.
Leyritz hit my favorite home run of all time, but man, what a selfish jerk. But he's far from the only one and I'm betting 50% of the population, minimum, has driven drunk to some degree.
25 Quite briefly, in readings of many articles, and our discussions here of the Mitchell Report, their has been a great deal of talk of the morals, sanctity and responsibilities of MLB.
I just find it ironic that many people, especially those in the press, hold baseball up to much higher standards then they do our government and business leaders.
33 Keep cranking away OYF. This site has been open to all topics for years which is why I keep coming back. If someone doesn't want to participate in discussing an idea raised they're free to ignore it or not to participate. I find myself doing that often. None of us always agree with the arguments and philosophical sensibilities of our fellow Banterers and we are free to ignore them or give a thread a rest. Only rarely are we free to shout someone down. (see 10-11-06)
There is something wrong with our perseveration on PED's and ignoring situations that actually cost people their lives. It seems there should be more attention paid to institutionalized drug abuse and the conspiracy of silent condonation on the part of those who continue to make fortunes supplying us with 'entertainment". There is a "Bread and Circus" aspect to this. It's simply too bad we have to rely on terrible circumstances such as this to recognize that the emperor has no clothes. Keep on being disgusted OYF, you're not alone.
Not to mention OYF's prolific bantering in my opinion is often an attempt to stir (intellectual) conversation, i.e. points and counterpoints, which to his credit often are not reduced to angry finger-pointing and backlash from him, something we see regularly from certain folks. Whether I agree with him or not, let me be one to say his opinions are welcome in the realm of civilized discussion. Besides, if we don't like moralizing, there is always the Ignore Option™ (hey, if I'm usually gonna be ignored, I might as well capitalize on it! >;)
The PED issue IS comparable to drinking because of the "role model" issue we keep hearing about--how it's somehow extra-bad for baseball players to juice because it sets a bad example for the kids.
If that is one of baseball's reasons for cracking down on steroids etc., then baseball players and managers ought to be held to a similarly high standard when it comes to alcohol abuse. But they aren't. You could argue Tony LaRussa helped pave the way for his pitcher's death, by setting such a negative example.
All of the above is related to both business and politics.
Steroids are illegal and alcohol is legal because of political decisions, not because one is objectively worse than the other.
And business comes into it because the Cardinals are owned by a fucking brewery.
Finally, I often find that when people complain about a discussion being politicized, it's because their politics are different, but they choose not to engage the argument on its merits, but instead like to pretend that they're taking the high road.
Gentlemen: I do appreciate your support. I don't like being called out here, as I do respect and take seriously the thoughts of my fellow Banterers.
I do confess it is difficult for me to watch Chris Mathews, Keith Olbermanm, et al, and then do a little Baseball blog surfing, only to read about what horrors Barry, Roger and Andy (my God!) have subjected our poor, dear childen to.
But just so you don't think I'm a total Political wonk, my post (last as usually) from yesday's thread:
Cashman is making for a very dull Hot Stove.
IS THERE NOTHING YANKEES TO TALK ABOUT?
Lohud and Co. is about 75% AGAINST a Santana trade.
Do we BB'ers stand at about the same position?
What does Cashman have up his sleeve?
Might we get a 1Bman who can do 2 of the following? Hit, Field, Throw. Run.
Is there a RP who is AT LEAST league average to be had?
Do we see AJax in the 2008 show?
Is Cashman gonna do a 'Damon' on a IPK/Horne deal for Santana?
AND WHATS GOING TO HAPPEN ON 24 THIS YEAR?
You guys are actually making me miss William and Mattpatt.
THINK ABOUT THAT A WHILE!!!!!
(and can somebody please translate for me what the hell Chyll is saying?)
I am in painful withdrawal from missing baseball, and while Alex's writings on authors, movies and hip-hop are always entertaining.... CAN WE TALK BASEBALL?
I mean, whowuddathought that a majority of fans would be against getting Santana (who is the BB'er here who has been posting wet dreams of Santana for the last year?)? I believe Cashman has put this team in such (a wonderful) transition, that aside from a few vet's names, this is a team totally reborn.
To think that we are salivating not over the Browns, Giambis and Johnsons (salivating over Johnsons???) but over the Hughes, Chamberland and Kennedys, and the Horns, Tabatas and Jacksons.
My entire feelings approaching the 2008 season are radically different tham those of the last decade. There is revolution going on in Yankeeland... but will Big Hank get in the way?
Common Chyll Will. Pnumonia be damned! Give us some of your ususal brillance on the topic (even if I don't understand it).
38 I've always thought that MacPhail made an egregiously bad ruling in that game. Not because it went against the Yankees, that's a minor point. (Besides, it led to Guidry in CF and Mattingly at 2B, which is all to the good.)
The umpires were confronted with rules that were ambiguous and apparently conflicting. Given that, they made a reasonable interpretation. Not the only one possible, since either side could be argued equally well, but a reasonable one.
That being the case, it was MacPhail's job to back up the umpires, period. He may have thought the other interpretation was better, but that's irrelevant as long as the decision they made, on the spot, was grounded in a reasonable reading of the rules. It was. Showing up his umpires was just plain wrong.
42 What is "common Chyll Will", btw? Especially when he's sick with pneumonia (or whatever this is, sniff!) Have you done any Serious Consideration lately, my good friend? My painstakenly-posted initial thoughts on the Mitchell Report are right there, since I don't want to hijack too much space here:
42 Want to talk baseball? Who do you think will win the Serie del Caribe next month?
From MLB.com
"Right-hander Jose Veras has compiled a standout offseason with Leones del Escogido, while recently acquired right-hander Jonathan Albaladejo has been pitching well for Tiburones de La Guaira. Infielder Alberto Gonzalez is also playing for the Bravos de Margarita in the Venezuelan Winter League." What do you think of their performance?
What do you think of the Yankees signing Juan Gonzalez?
http://tinyurl.com/2jwf3m
;)
46 Especially in the light that the umpires have called batters out on the "pine tar rule." White and Rizzuto seemed to have differing opinions on the matter.
52 I'm going to stick with the axiom: "if you have to explain it it wasn't funny" and go sit in a corner. Now, let me see, where did I put that hair shirt?
55 You must mean a well-done Chyll Will, and since I'm not well, you're not talking about me. Okay, but since I'm not well, could you help me figure out 50 ?
I don't know how many of you guys have seen this. I just went today and it is amazing. It is an exhibition at the Museum of the City of New York on the Glory days of New York Baseball.
It is only around for a few more days. So check it out!
http://www.mcny.org/exhibitions/current/565.html
Cano and Wang are both up for arbitration.
On the FA market, they are each worth somewhere between $10 and $15m.
Questions:
1) Is there some rule to what a reasonable 'demand' would be? Is there some relationship to their FA value?
2) When are these guys FAs?
3) If we DON'T give them a contract, I believe their Arb. contract is one year? Does this mean they go to arbitration every year until they are FAs (or the Yanks give them a contact)?
We talk about how the Yankees payroll is going way down, but between Wang and Cano, then Melky, then (hopefully) Hughes, Joba and IPK, what might be the anticipated costs for these 6 guys over the next 5 or so years?
60 I wouldn't recommend it... besides, no offense, but you already make some people sick enough as it is (feel better, nemecizer, see ya next year! >;)
Just speculating, so feel free to add or subtract:
1.) From an agent's standpoint, you would likely take the range of salaries for players in their tier (which may or may not include performance+age+projection over expected playing years at position) and, depending on the current need, aim for the upper range, if not for the top if they were a top performer the previous year. Without looking, Wang and Cano are probably in the upper range and could easily top the average.
From a GM's standpoint, they are relatively young and you obviously want to keep them locked in for a while at a lower salary then they would obviously get either from arbitration or from the market, so you leverage years and security for a lower average salary. Hard to sell to a top performer, but average to the Yankees is high to most other teams. What do their projections play out to be?
2.) They're each playing on 1-yr contracts, so ostensibly they can become free agents if the Yanks don't offer them a contract or arbitration (I think they can each be offered arbitration one more year after this before they become true free agents for 2010 season...
3.) Yes, from what I understand. The good with arbitration is that as a player or team, you can secure a contract, regardless. The bad (from a player's standpoint) is that it's not a player's option unless it is offered, so relying on arbitration can bite you in the behind if a team declines to offer it. From a team's standpoint, it can be bad if it's offered to a player you don't really want in the first place (you'd rather have the draft picks you get for losing them to FA) and that player instead accepts.
I may have left some things out, and I may be completely wrong on some points, but that's when someone will swoop in and show us the error of our ways.
61 , 62 I don't have pneumonia, but I'll do my best anyway.
1. There's no rule. Each side submits a number and makes an argument supporting it, pulling out whichever stats and comparisons best support their numbers. They can make any argument they please; the agent will presumably make the comparison with free agents, while the team will cite players with similar experience.
The arbitrator then picks one number or the other, with no wiggle room. So the agent's job isn't really to decide what's "reasonable" It's to guess what the team will offer and come up with a number that will seem $1 more reasonable to an arbitrator.
2. Wang and Cano have slightly less than three years of ML service, but they're eligible as "Super Twos." If I understand correctly, they need six full years before becoming free agents, so that would be after 2011.
3. When you say "If we DON'T give them a contract," I assume you mean a long-term deal. Then yes, the arbitration is for one year at a time.
6364 - Guesses? Wang must be 'worth' in the neighborhood of $14m, Cano $12m.
The Yanks might offer $6m-ish?
They might ask for $9m-ish?
I would guess if the Yanks lowball, Wang/Cano submission carries more weight, and if Wang/Cano go too high, the favor swings to the Yanks?
Guesses anyone?
66 Well yeah, that's how it's supposed to work >;) But if I could crawl into their minds, or just read them anyway, I'd figure out how I could get them to dump a few million dollars in my basement apartment first. Then I'd move out and clear their minds of ever having met me for any reason. That's my best guess...
If you know you're driving don't drink. You know you're drinking hire a service, get a cab, use a designated driver or stay the hell home. I have no idea how much money this ass-hat makes or has but people who make or have made a hell of a lot less money than him manage to do those things. My suspicion then is it's not the money, it's his attitude. Well screw him.
2 If it turns out he was operating under the influence I hope they hammer the crap out of him. A couple of years in a max security Florida prison will do the "King" a world of good. Too bad all they can nail him on is DUI Manslaughter; 2nd degree murder sounds a lot better better on these DUI death cases. If he was at fault and loaded maybe they can coble a Vehicular Homicide charge together, that should hit harder than DUI Manslaughter.
Funny, how the press all cry about the loss of 'integrity' in baseball, but don't take a good look at our current administration and big business leaders. Congress will get all uppity at Steroids, while alcohol continues to kill more then all the other drugs put together.
F#$%in' hypocrites.
Good grief.
Frankly, you sometimes hog these forums with your beliefs.
Please leave it to baseball.
12 It's not a MLB problem as much as a USA problem
13 You don't think alcoholism affects competition on the field?
McGwire's use of andro, for example, was not against the rules.
Leyritz connections with Greenies and HGH could be, but they, too, detour us from the tragedy. A loss of a young mother, leaving a family that will never be the same. And his unalterable change of direction which will leave him and his children and family scarred forever.
Very sad regardless of its connection to baseball.
See 7
Players not taking care of themselves (whether it's through drinking too much or staying up too late playing video games) is qualitatively different from players contravening the game's rules, and I would like to think you know that. If anything, such activities would be a team matter, not a league matter.
At least as far as this long-time reader/poster is concerned, the quality of discussion on this board has gone down since you became so prolific and widely focused in your posts.
So knock it off.
Anyway, my issue has more to do with the way alcohol is perceived, as well as the lack of penalties for a DWI/DUI. A 30 year old mother lost her life. And maybe Leyritz'll get a couple of years, maybe a few months, of time, along with probation and/or community service.
It isn't the first time it's happened with someone caught (famous or not), nor will it be the last.
WRT the game, I understand that MLB cannot do anything about it (DWI & alcoholism), but winking and nodding at it is unacceptable. Especially when alcohol is served at every ballpark, and assumingly in every clubhouse. Teams can't do anything about it either.
I'm not asking for a return to prohibition, but something needs to be done regarding drunk driving. But like I said before, this isn't so much a MLB issue than an US issue.
Nothing can be done, and nothing will be done. Human desire cannot and will not be regulated or legislated.
Right on Q.
Nice read all around.
as an aside, the leyritz home run was the most exciting turning point in any yankees series i've seen.
Sourced from "the smoking gun."
Leyritz hit my favorite home run of all time, but man, what a selfish jerk. But he's far from the only one and I'm betting 50% of the population, minimum, has driven drunk to some degree.
I just find it ironic that many people, especially those in the press, hold baseball up to much higher standards then they do our government and business leaders.
There is something wrong with our perseveration on PED's and ignoring situations that actually cost people their lives. It seems there should be more attention paid to institutionalized drug abuse and the conspiracy of silent condonation on the part of those who continue to make fortunes supplying us with 'entertainment". There is a "Bread and Circus" aspect to this. It's simply too bad we have to rely on terrible circumstances such as this to recognize that the emperor has no clothes. Keep on being disgusted OYF, you're not alone.
It's funny to watch UL Washington coming to bat with a toothpick in his mouth :)
From a graphics standpoint, we have come a long way...
If that is one of baseball's reasons for cracking down on steroids etc., then baseball players and managers ought to be held to a similarly high standard when it comes to alcohol abuse. But they aren't. You could argue Tony LaRussa helped pave the way for his pitcher's death, by setting such a negative example.
All of the above is related to both business and politics.
Steroids are illegal and alcohol is legal because of political decisions, not because one is objectively worse than the other.
And business comes into it because the Cardinals are owned by a fucking brewery.
Finally, I often find that when people complain about a discussion being politicized, it's because their politics are different, but they choose not to engage the argument on its merits, but instead like to pretend that they're taking the high road.
jeez...
I do confess it is difficult for me to watch Chris Mathews, Keith Olbermanm, et al, and then do a little Baseball blog surfing, only to read about what horrors Barry, Roger and Andy (my God!) have subjected our poor, dear childen to.
But just so you don't think I'm a total Political wonk, my post (last as usually) from yesday's thread:
Cashman is making for a very dull Hot Stove.
IS THERE NOTHING YANKEES TO TALK ABOUT?
Lohud and Co. is about 75% AGAINST a Santana trade.
Do we BB'ers stand at about the same position?
What does Cashman have up his sleeve?
Might we get a 1Bman who can do 2 of the following? Hit, Field, Throw. Run.
Is there a RP who is AT LEAST league average to be had?
Do we see AJax in the 2008 show?
Is Cashman gonna do a 'Damon' on a IPK/Horne deal for Santana?
AND WHATS GOING TO HAPPEN ON 24 THIS YEAR?
You guys are actually making me miss William and Mattpatt.
THINK ABOUT THAT A WHILE!!!!!
(and can somebody please translate for me what the hell Chyll is saying?)
I am in painful withdrawal from missing baseball, and while Alex's writings on authors, movies and hip-hop are always entertaining.... CAN WE TALK BASEBALL?
I mean, whowuddathought that a majority of fans would be against getting Santana (who is the BB'er here who has been posting wet dreams of Santana for the last year?)? I believe Cashman has put this team in such (a wonderful) transition, that aside from a few vet's names, this is a team totally reborn.
To think that we are salivating not over the Browns, Giambis and Johnsons (salivating over Johnsons???) but over the Hughes, Chamberland and Kennedys, and the Horns, Tabatas and Jacksons.
My entire feelings approaching the 2008 season are radically different tham those of the last decade. There is revolution going on in Yankeeland... but will Big Hank get in the way?
Common Chyll Will. Pnumonia be damned! Give us some of your ususal brillance on the topic (even if I don't understand it).
Neighbor: "You have a 30-foot stack of flaming tires in your backyard!"
Duckman: "I TOLD you, I can't put it out until someone from Ripley's documents it..."
Neighbor: "It's been burning for three years!"
Duckman: "Well, it's hard to get them to come out... they're still angry about... yunnow, the... the bee thing..."
Second Neighbor: (face ravished and swollen) "The BEE THING!?!?"
...there's got to be something connecting them... >;)
Whoops, thank you.
I would still stand by more general point that baseball and beer have a business relationship that precludes a tougher anti-alcohol stance.
The umpires were confronted with rules that were ambiguous and apparently conflicting. Given that, they made a reasonable interpretation. Not the only one possible, since either side could be argued equally well, but a reasonable one.
That being the case, it was MacPhail's job to back up the umpires, period. He may have thought the other interpretation was better, but that's irrelevant as long as the decision they made, on the spot, was grounded in a reasonable reading of the rules. It was. Showing up his umpires was just plain wrong.
http://tinyurl.com/35zt5y
>;) (Mucinex® DM helps an eencie-weencie bit...)
From MLB.com
"Right-hander Jose Veras has compiled a standout offseason with Leones del Escogido, while recently acquired right-hander Jonathan Albaladejo has been pitching well for Tiburones de La Guaira. Infielder Alberto Gonzalez is also playing for the Bravos de Margarita in the Venezuelan Winter League." What do you think of their performance?
What do you think of the Yankees signing Juan Gonzalez?
http://tinyurl.com/2jwf3m
;)
46 Especially in the light that the umpires have called batters out on the "pine tar rule." White and Rizzuto seemed to have differing opinions on the matter.
Do the Giants win?
It is only around for a few more days. So check it out!
http://www.mcny.org/exhibitions/current/565.html
So.... what do guys think about politics and big business?
On the FA market, they are each worth somewhere between $10 and $15m.
Questions:
1) Is there some rule to what a reasonable 'demand' would be? Is there some relationship to their FA value?
2) When are these guys FAs?
3) If we DON'T give them a contract, I believe their Arb. contract is one year? Does this mean they go to arbitration every year until they are FAs (or the Yanks give them a contact)?
We talk about how the Yankees payroll is going way down, but between Wang and Cano, then Melky, then (hopefully) Hughes, Joba and IPK, what might be the anticipated costs for these 6 guys over the next 5 or so years?
1.) From an agent's standpoint, you would likely take the range of salaries for players in their tier (which may or may not include performance+age+projection over expected playing years at position) and, depending on the current need, aim for the upper range, if not for the top if they were a top performer the previous year. Without looking, Wang and Cano are probably in the upper range and could easily top the average.
From a GM's standpoint, they are relatively young and you obviously want to keep them locked in for a while at a lower salary then they would obviously get either from arbitration or from the market, so you leverage years and security for a lower average salary. Hard to sell to a top performer, but average to the Yankees is high to most other teams. What do their projections play out to be?
2.) They're each playing on 1-yr contracts, so ostensibly they can become free agents if the Yanks don't offer them a contract or arbitration (I think they can each be offered arbitration one more year after this before they become true free agents for 2010 season...
3.) Yes, from what I understand. The good with arbitration is that as a player or team, you can secure a contract, regardless. The bad (from a player's standpoint) is that it's not a player's option unless it is offered, so relying on arbitration can bite you in the behind if a team declines to offer it. From a team's standpoint, it can be bad if it's offered to a player you don't really want in the first place (you'd rather have the draft picks you get for losing them to FA) and that player instead accepts.
I may have left some things out, and I may be completely wrong on some points, but that's when someone will swoop in and show us the error of our ways.
1. There's no rule. Each side submits a number and makes an argument supporting it, pulling out whichever stats and comparisons best support their numbers. They can make any argument they please; the agent will presumably make the comparison with free agents, while the team will cite players with similar experience.
The arbitrator then picks one number or the other, with no wiggle room. So the agent's job isn't really to decide what's "reasonable" It's to guess what the team will offer and come up with a number that will seem $1 more reasonable to an arbitrator.
2. Wang and Cano have slightly less than three years of ML service, but they're eligible as "Super Twos." If I understand correctly, they need six full years before becoming free agents, so that would be after 2011.
3. When you say "If we DON'T give them a contract," I assume you mean a long-term deal. Then yes, the arbitration is for one year at a time.
The Yanks might offer $6m-ish?
They might ask for $9m-ish?
I would guess if the Yanks lowball, Wang/Cano submission carries more weight, and if Wang/Cano go too high, the favor swings to the Yanks?
Guesses anyone?
Comment status: comments have been closed. Baseball Toaster is now out of business.