Did you see how far apart Ortiz and the RSFO are?

[SoxSport]

That's the problem Sox Sport. Iglesias does NOT possess good speed. He is not a stolen base threat and when you combine that with his poor plate discilipline and total lack of power' date=' he winds up a minus on the team. We had a good hitting team in 2008 too, but I remember that summer like a bad nightmare. Jason Varitek was beginning his long decline into uselessness after June and there were so many games that summer where we were in close contests and it seemed always that he was at bat with the game on the line. Francona, being the placater that he was, refused to pinch hit for him and said so in the papers, and the result that he failed every time he came up in that situation save for one game winning hit against Texas at FP. We lost about ten games that way. No, SS, we cannot have a totally weak hitter in the lineup in the AL. Besides, with our luck in a clutch situation with the game possibly on the line the batter's box would find the guy we least want up there, as it was with Varitek that summer of '08.[/quote']

 

 

I saw him circle the bases at Fenway last year on a double as pinch runner, and he looked very fast to me. Maybe he hasn't learned how to steal bases yet. That would not be a surprise with the Red Sox, but I suspect Bobby V will change that.

 

Tito lost a lot of games for them repeatedly going to the trough with dead horses. But the loyalty extended right up the ladder beyond Tito.

[ibot2much]

Going into next week we see the potential for the hearing. According to the GLOBE, Ortiz wants two years....so how about 2 years for 16+m....that would seem pretty generous to me.

[a700hitter]

Going into next week we see the potential for the hearing. According to the GLOBE' date=' Ortiz wants two years....so how about 2 years for 16+m....that would seem pretty generous to me.[/quote']He's guaranteed $12.65 M for 2012. Do you think he would accept $3.35 M for 2013? I don't think so. If they want to seriously negotiate for a 2 year contract, they have to offer 2 years/$20 million. Otherwise he's going to arbitration.

[Spudboy]

Let him walk.

 

Let's go with team speed, not power.

[ibot2much]

He's guaranteed $12.65 M for 2012. Do you think he would accept $3.35 M for 2013? I don't think so. If they want to seriously negotiate for a 2 year contract' date=' they have to offer 2 years/$20 million. Otherwise he's going to arbitration.[/quote']

 

 

I was being sarcastic...but thanks so much for your input

[a700hitter]

Let him walk.

 

Let's go with team speed, not power.

They are tied to him for 2012.

[ORS]

I saw him circle the bases at Fenway last year on a double as pinch runner, and he looked very fast to me. Maybe he hasn't learned how to steal bases yet. That would not be a surprise with the Red Sox, but I suspect Bobby V will change that.

 

Tito lost a lot of games for them repeatedly going to the trough with dead horses. But the loyalty extended right up the ladder beyond Tito.

Not only that, but you can't steal first. Iglesias stuggles getting on base, so of course he doesn't steal a lot of them. Most SR's I've read state he has above average speed, which is kind of what you'd expect for a guy touted as a defensive wizard at a middle of the field position.

[ORS]

They are tied to him for 2012.

Not if they release him after arbitration. I can't find a link right now, but I recall reading that they can still DFA him for a nominal cost relative to the arbitration award. I don't think there's a realistic chance of this happening, but it's not impossible.

[ibot2much]

Not if they release him after arbitration. I can't find a link right now' date=' but I recall reading that they can still DFA him for a nominal cost relative to the arbitration award. I don't think there's a realistic chance of this happening, but it's not impossible.[/quote']

 

 

If he rejects the arbitration award, isn't that a reason for the two to part ways?

[a700hitter]

If he rejects the arbitration award' date=' isn't that a reason for the two to part ways?[/quote']He can't reject the arbitration award. It is binding on both parties.

[User Name]

Not if they release him after arbitration. I can't find a link right now' date=' but I recall reading that they can still DFA him for a nominal cost relative to the arbitration award. I don't think there's a realistic chance of this happening, but it's not impossible.[/quote']

 

1) His full arbitration-awarded salary would still impact the cap.

 

2) To release him without cap impact, they'd have to prove that he is incapable to perform as a baseball player, which is nearly impossible to do.

[a700hitter]

Not if they release him after arbitration. I can't find a link right now' date=' but I recall reading that they can still DFA him for a nominal cost relative to the arbitration award. I don't think there's a realistic chance of this happening, but it's not impossible.[/quote']I can't imagine how that could be built into the CBA. It would render the the arbitration process to be a farce. There must be preconditions to release such as inability or refusal to perform. Otherwise, teams would be cutting guys left and right when the team lost the hearing. It would be a bad faith negotiation, leaving the player with little time to catch on with another team. The union would never let that through.

[jacksonianmarch]

Not if they release him after arbitration. I can't find a link right now' date=' but I recall reading that they can still DFA him for a nominal cost relative to the arbitration award. I don't think there's a realistic chance of this happening, but it's not impossible.[/quote']

 

They have to prove that he isnt capable of playing the position anymore. It's almost impossible to do

[Spudboy]

1) His full arbitration-awarded salary would still impact the cap.

 

2) To release him without cap impact, they'd have to prove that he is incapable to perform as a baseball player, which is nearly impossible to do.

 

They have to prove that he isnt capable of playing the position anymore. It's almost impossible to do

 

A Sox Fan and a Yankee Fan agreeing this frequently must mean Armageddon!

 

Oye!

 

I was not serious. I don't see the Sox trying to part ways with the lush. I said what I said with sarcasm. Too bad it does not translate on the interweb.

[a700hitter]

A Sox Fan and a Yankee Fan agreeing this frequently must mean Armageddon!

 

Oye!

 

I was not serious. I don't see the Sox trying to part ways with the lush. I said what I said with sarcasm. Too bad it does not translate on the interweb.

Damn it Spud, that's what the emoticons are for!

[Spudboy]

Damn it Spud' date=' that's what the emoticons are for![/quote']

 

I am emoticonilly (?) challenged, it would appear.

[ORS]

1) His full arbitration-awarded salary would still impact the cap.

 

2) To release him without cap impact, they'd have to prove that he is incapable to perform as a baseball player, which is nearly impossible to do.

1. I'm not talking about salary cap relief.

 

2. Wasn't aware of that. The article I read just indicated they could be cut, and the duration of the termination pay was dependent upon when the player was cut relative to 16-days before opening day. Have you got a link to something that describes this in more detail?

[User Name]

1. I'm not talking about salary cap relief.

 

I understand, but i'm referring to the perspective the Red Sox would take in this situation. Cutting him would still cost you money, give you the tax hit (which they have been reportedly been avoiding) and leave a hole in your lineup.

 

 

2. Wasn't aware of that. The article I read just indicated they could be cut, and the duration of the termination pay was dependent upon when the player was cut relative to 16-days before opening day. Have you got a link to something that describes this in more detail?

 

The panel, without opinion, awards the player a one-year, non-guaranteed contract at one salary or the other. If the player is cut within 16 days before the season begins, he is entitled only to 30 days’ termination pay. If the player is cut during spring training but after the 16th day before the season begins, he is entitled only to 45 days’ termination pay.

 

I think this is what you're referring to.

 

The problem is, that for purposes of the luxury tax (i know it's not what you were talking about, but bear with me here), the player would still be considered a part of the club for the "championship season". The only way to get rid of the burden of his salary from the tax is to cut him under the circumstances i mentioned above.

 

If luxury tax issues are to be ignored, however, then it would be possible to cut him paying him a bit more than a sixth of his salary.

[Spudboy]

They won't cut him. He makes them too much money.

 

I think?

 

Edit: Of course if the tax hit is more than they believe they generate from having him on the roster, well yeah. They could do it. But really, cutting him would be a huge black eye. I can't see that happening.

[ibot2much]

Do you really think Ortiz personally "makes" them money. I figure people come to see the team play....he is ONE member of the team.

[a700hitter]

The Collective Bargaining specifically outlines what can and what cannot be brought up by either side's representatives. If evidence is brought up that is not specifically listed in the CBA it is not to be considered by the arbitrators.

 

The following evidence is admissable:

 

1. The quality of the player's contribution to his club during the past season (including but not limited to his overall performance, special qualities of leadership and public appeal).

2. The length and consistency of his career contribution.

3. The record of the player's past compensation.

4. Comparative baseball salaries (the arbitration panel is provided with a table of confidential baseball salaries for all players broken down by years of service).

5. The existence of any physical or mental defects on the part of the player.

6. The recent performance of the club, including but not limited to his league standing and attendance.

 

The following evidence is inadmissible:

 

1. The financial position of the player and the club (though player representatives often try to get this information in the back door by presenting attendance information that implies the health of a club's revenue streams).

2. Press comments, testimonials or similar material bearing on the performance of either the player or the club, except for recognized annual player awards for playing excellence.

3. Offers made by either the player or the club prior to arbitration.

4. Cost to the parties of their representatives.

5. Salaries in other sports or occupations.

[Muggah]

Do you really think Ortiz personally "makes" them money. I figure people come to see the team play....he is ONE member of the team.

 

 

I still believe having Big Diva in the fold as an active player with heroic ties to their 'glorious past' for their year long 100th anniversary celebration played a role in making sure he is still here. How much is debatable. But when it comes to shameless marketing and self-promotion, this group of media whores who own this team will sink to any level.

[a700hitter]

Nelson Cruz's Submission in Arb that they settled before the hearing:

 

http://www.law.tulane.edu/uploadedFiles/Student_Org_Sites/Sports_Law_Society/Cruz%20-%208.pdf

[User Name]

I still believe having Big Diva in the fold as an active player with heroic ties to their 'glorious past' for their year long 100th anniversary celebration played a role in making sure he is still here. How much is debatable. But when it comes to shameless marketing and self-promotion' date=' this group of media whores who own this team will sink to any level.[/quote']

 

Yeah, i'm sure it's "media whoring" and not due to the fact that had he declined arb, whoever signed him would have given the Sox extra draft picks, and if he accepted arbitration (which he did) they were keeping the 8th most productive offensive player in all of MLB and most productive DH in the league last year.

 

Nah, that couldn't be it. They're just whoring for attention!

[kgsmith]

he is going to win.. The ruling will be based on the Adam Dunn deal..

[User Name]

he is going to win.. The ruling will be based on the Adam Dunn deal..

 

Explain why?

 

Not only is Dunn making less than what Ortiz asked for, he is making an average of 14 million, and his actual salary for 2011 was 12 million, which spikes to 14 million for 2012.

 

Also, Dunn isn't even remotely the best comparison in production/age to Ortiz, it is Paul Konerko, who made 12 million last year and makes 12 million for 2012.

[a700hitter]

A Player whose Contract is terminated by a Club under paragraph 7((2) of the Uniform Player’s Contract for failure to exhibit sufficient skill or competitive ability shall be entitled to receive termination pay from the Club in an amount equal to thirty (30) days’ payment at the rate stipulated in paragraph 2 of his Contract, if the termination occurs during spring training but on or before the 16th day prior to the start of the championship season. If the termination occurs during spring training, but subsequent to the 16th day prior to the start of the championship season, the Player’s termination pay shall be in an amount equal to forty-five (45) days’ payment at the rate stipulated in paragraph 2 of his Contract.

The bolded portion is a precondition for cutting a player with a contract in Spring Training. After going to binding arbitration, the Red Sox had better be able to show that Ortiz can no longer DH in the major leagues if they are going to win their case. The chances of him getting cut in Spring Training are slim and none barring a tragic injury.

[jacksonianmarch]

And if he is injured, he cannot be cut anyway. AND, if they cut him and the players union wins the grievance (which they will), the sox lose Ortiz and have to pay him anyway. The sox and Ortiz are gonna be married for at least another yr. Get used to it

[a700hitter]

And if he is injured' date=' he cannot be cut anyway. AND, if they cut him and the players union wins the grievance (which they will), the sox lose Ortiz and have to pay him anyway. The sox and Ortiz are gonna be married for at least another yr. Get used to it[/quote']It was a major mess up offering him arbitration. Without arbitration, they probably could have locked him up for 2years/$16m or $18m. Now there is no chance he could be signed for anything less than 2/$20. It would probably take more. He'd be a fool to agree to less. An offer of 2/18 would fly in the face of reason.

[SoxSport]

If Diva gets $16.5mil to play next year, Henry should jump in Boston Harbor in his best suit.