Building the 2004 Expos (December 8, 2003)
Not offering Vlad arbitration? Two things could have happened:
1 - Vlad rejects, and Expos end up with compensation
2 - Vlad accepts, and arbitrator rules, and say even accepts Vlad's whatever.. 16 million? 18 million? whatever.
Say #2 happens. Montreal figure "no way am I paying 18 million$ I don't have the money". They then pull a Manny Ramirez, and offer him to the other 29 clubs for a box of baseballs. Don't you think that one team would love to have Vlad signed for even 1 year at 18 mill (or should I say ESPECIALLY for 1 year at 18 mill?) At worst, the Expos would have lost nothing on the deal. Nothing! The same thing happened with Larry Walker after 1994. When you've got players in their 20s, and you can sign them for 1 year at the market rate, you take it!
--posted by TangoTiger at 03:03 PM EDT
Posted 3:32 p.m.,
December 8, 2003
(#1) -
Chris
Here's the catch...
I know that Free Agents have an automatic no-trade clause until June or July. Does that apply to arbitration awards?
Also, I didn't know this until yesterday, but the Expos could walk away from the contract for 30 days pay until spring training and for 45 days pay until the beginning of the season. (Although this cost would be prohibitive for them anyway)
Posted 5:36 p.m.,
December 8, 2003
(#2) -
David Smyth
Tango, maybe the Expos simply want to deal fairly whenever they can, especially to a player they have developed and featured for years, and feel they simply can't afford to keep. Your #1--Vlad rejects, there's no way they could assume that, unless they had a gentleman's agreement with Vlad to offer arbitration, even tho he told them he'd reject, just so they could manipulate the system to get a bit of compensation. That's not "kosher". And your #2--Vlad accepts and they "pull a Manny Ramirez", that is just misleading Vlad and the public about your real intentions. Why is it assumed by some that a team is dutybound to exploit every "loophole" they can find? I, for one, find it refreshing that the Expos decided that they can't or don't want to afford Vlad, and simply did the appropriate and "moral" thing.
Posted 6:08 p.m.,
December 8, 2003
(#3) -
dlf
David,
I wish I shared your optismistic faith in human endeavors. But my cynical side suggests that this team owned by and controlled by its competitors has mandated that the Expos not offer arbitration to Guerrero (1) in order to hold down the cost to whomever finally acquires him and (2) so they don't have to pay the going cost of drafting a first rounder plus a sandwitch choice. In other words, it was a decision made for the financial benefit of every other team and in no way based on what is good for either the Expos, their fans, or Guerrero himself.
Posted 9:28 p.m.,
December 8, 2003
(#4) -
Alan Jordan
Dlf,
You're absolutely right. The Expos' decision was entirely optimal - for the other 29 teams. Playing for the Expos must be like playing for the occupied France team against the Germans and Japanese, except that they probably won't shoot you for crossing home plate. Yet.
Posted 7:09 a.m.,
December 9, 2003
(#5) -
studes
(homepage)
I feel strongly that not offering Vlad arbitration would not be the "fair" or "moral" thing to do, even under David's circumstances.
The Expos invested a lot of money and time in Vlad. He was paid fairly and paid well for his contribution. Now, because of the rules of this labor market and the bizarre ownership structure of the Expos, he gets to walk and the Expos get nothing.
The rules are clear here, as are the repercussions. Even if the Expos were run by angels, I think offering Vlad arbitration would be fair and moral -- even if the Expos knew they would not be able to afford him.
Posted 1:39 p.m.,
December 9, 2003
(#6) -
ChrisM
Indeed it would be unfair and immoral not to offer him arbitration, from the eyes of the Expos fan(s).
Posted 8:36 p.m.,
December 9, 2003
(#7) -
Snowboy
This was an extremely frustrating development. I believe that there has been some market adjustment going on this winter, not collusion. Except perhaps in this Vlad case. I can't believe that there has been no report of any team offering him a contract.
(Worried about giving the Expos a draft pick if signed him too early? Please. Some teams think so highly of draft picks that they are willing to forego them to get their hands on Michael Tucker; this is Vladimir Guerrero we're talking about!)
The Expos reportedly offered him a 5 yr, $60M contract (not A-Rod money, but not league minimum.) Offering arbitration could have allowed negots to continue.
In addition, Vlad could have always turned them down. Or signed with another team regardless, thus the Expos get a pick.
The Vlad situation is the only one which makes me think collusion. Or at the very least "Commissioner Interference."