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

[jacksonianmarch]

Exactly. On further review, I do think the sox have the best case. But who knows what the arbiter will rule. He's a prideful man, if he knows at the very least, he's gonna make $12.6 mil in 2012, why would he sign a deal that only guarantees him $5.4 mil for 2013? He believes in himself, and I bet he thinks he can do better in 2012 than he did last yr. Eventually, the gas will run out

[seabeachfred]

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']

 

ORS---right now what passes for my brain is exploding about this DFA stuff. Are you sure they could release Ortiz if this arbitration turns messy? Some people here have agreed with that but others have said no---and frankly I haven't a clue what the real lowdown is.

 

My take is to give him a one year contract and if he wins in arbitration so what? I just want him out by 2013 so Ryan Lavarnway can finally get his chance. If you remember, we kept sending Youkilis up and down and up and down for two seasons before we finally put him in the lineup at age 27. For a talent like Lavarnway, that is crapola. I would like to see this young man in that lineup as soon as time would permit. A two year contract just blocks Ryan for two years instead of one. It's all small potatoes anyway because right now he will be with us in 2012. I hope he has a big season. I think he should be gone after this year.

[a700hitter]

ORS---right now what passes for my brain is exploding about this DFA stuff. Are you sure they could release Ortiz if this arbitration turns messy? Some people here have agreed with that but others have said no---and frankly I haven't a clue what the real lowdown is.

 

My take is to give him a one year contract and if he wins in arbitration so what? I just want him out by 2013 so Ryan Lavarnway can finally get his chance. If you remember, we kept sending Youkilis up and down and up and down for two seasons before we finally put him in the lineup at age 27. For a talent like Lavarnway, that is crapola. I would like to see this young man in that lineup as soon as time would permit. A two year contract just blocks Ryan for two years instead of one. It's all small potatoes anyway because right now he will be with us in 2012. I hope he has a big season. I think he should be gone after this year.

The language I quoted above is directly from the old CBA. I believe this provision has remained the same in the new CBA. It requires that the player be cut "for failure to exhibit sufficient skill or competitive ability". It ain't gonna happen. Zero chance. The union would come down on the Sox like a ton of bricks. It would make a farce of arbitration and be demonstrable bad faith. As Jacko said, Ortiz would win and get the best of both worlds, he'd be set free and the Sox would have to pay his entire salary.

[seabeachfred]

The language I quoted above is directly from the old CBA. I believe this provision has remained the same in the new CBA. It requires that the player be cut "for failure to exhibit sufficient skill or competitive ability". It ain't gonna happen. Zero chance. The union would come down on the Sox like a ton of bricks. It would make a farce of arbitration and be demonstrable bad faith. As Jacko said' date=' Ortiz would win and get the best of both worlds, he'd be set free and the Sox would have to pay his entire salary.[/quote']

 

You had my back once again my friend. Thanks. Amazing for a rabid fan like I am, but I have never understood that arbitration language until now. At least I hope I get it now.

[ibot2much]

Should we read between the lines here? Merloni said that Ortiz is the worst player to go into arbitration. He said that DO is so sensitive and emotional that to hear the Sox lay out the reasons why he shouldn't get 16M will be detrimental to him. "Even if he wins, he's going to leave there with different feelings."

[a700hitter]

Should we read between the lines here? Merloni said that Ortiz is the worst player to go into arbitration. He said that DO is so sensitive and emotional that to hear the Sox lay out the reasons why he shouldn't get 16M will be detrimental to him. "Even if he wins' date=' he's going to leave there with different feelings."[/quote']It's a no win situation for the Sox.

[a700hitter]

JH will do a lot of screaming and yelling if Ortiz wins his hearing.

[win red sox]

found this artice ref releasing a player on a arbitration contract:

 

http://riveraveblues.com/2009/02/the-non-guaranteed-nature-of-arbitration-7503/

 

It appears Ortiz would have to struggle mightily and another player would have to excel. But, it doesn't really matter anymore due to there are no quality starting free agent pitchers left. I would rather Pay 1/16 than 2/24 anyday and move on.

 

PS this case was the padres releasing Todd Walker after he won his arbitration case, the player filed a grievance and lost.

[mvp 78]

JH will do a lot of screaming and yelling if Ortiz wins his hearing.

 

Doubtful, I bet he wears Ortiz footie pj's to bed.

[FredLynn]

JH will do a lot of screaming and yelling if Ortiz wins his hearing.

 

That will be nothing compared to the screaming and pouting Ortiz will do if he loses.

[a700hitter]

That will be nothing compared to the screaming and pouting Ortiz will do if he loses.

If they say bad things about him, he might pout if he wins.

[ibot2much]

If they say bad things about him' date=' he might pout if he wins.[/quote']

 

That is exactly what Merloni hinted at when I said "do we need to read between the lines"

[SoxSport]

That will be nothing compared to the screaming and pouting Ortiz will do if he loses.

 

Would love to see Diva barge into one of Bobby V.'s press conferences. Bobby might cut him on the spot.

[jung]

I know the language in the CBA sounds manageable enough and almost makes it seems like a team could make a case for using that language to dispense with a player in the arbitration process but that is really not the case. Basically if you can get the uniform on your back you are capable of playing. So there really is no case that can be made around that language. The Players Union would have kittens anyway.

[ORS]

I know the language in the CBA sounds manageable enough and almost makes it seems like a team could make a case for using that language to dispense with a player in the arbitration process but that is really not the case. Basically if you can get the uniform on your back you are capable of playing. So there really is no case that can be made around that language. The Players Union would have kittens anyway.

If there's no case, why did Walker lose his grievance when SD cut him for hitting poorly in spring training? I'm in agreement that it would be difficult, but the link shared above suggests comments like "there really is no case that can be made" are bit too strong.

[a700hitter]

Todd Walker not only hit poorly, but he could no longer play adequate defense. Hitting poorly in Spring Training would probably not be sufficient to prove lack of sufficient skill in light of his history of starting slowly. Anyone who thinks cutting Ortiz in Spring Training is a possibility is out on crazy island.

[ORS]

Todd Walker not only hit poorly' date=' but he could no longer play adequate defense. Hitting poorly in Spring Training would probably not be sufficient to prove lack of sufficient skill in light of his history of starting slowly. Anyone who thinks cutting Ortiz in Spring Training is a possibility is out on crazy island.[/quote']

I agree that it is extremely unlikely to happen. The Walker case merely eliminates the "impossibility" of it being attempted. One, I think they need him this year - it's looking like they will need to bash their way to some wins this year. Two, I don't think the FO would want to take the PR hit that doing this would result in. Three, there's too much risk in having to pay him anyway by losing to the grievance claim. All that said, anything could happen.

[SoxSport]

Diva and the RSFO are about $4mil apart--to answer the thread question. It looks like that's where they'll stay. I don't see them going 2 years now that they've seen there's no market for him. They probably also think they'll win the arbitration. It will be interesting to see what they do if they lose. $16.5 mil looks embarrassing. They could cut him or dump his salary--like the Yanks are trying to do with Burnett. I doubt they'll do either, because Henry is sensitive to the fan reaction.

[User Name]

The thread just establishes that he couldn't realistically be cut, but SoxSport uses SoxSport logic and says he could indeed be cut.

 

Well done.

[RedSoxfanforlife305]

Lol @ cutting Ortiz.

[VA Sox Fan]

The thread just establishes that he couldn't realistically be cut, but SoxSport uses SoxSport logic and says he could indeed be cut.

 

Well done.

 

It was established pages ago but it keeps coming up.

 

I was also wondering who "Diva" was;)

[Muggah]

The language I quoted above is directly from the old CBA. I believe this provision has remained the same in the new CBA. It requires that the player be cut "for failure to exhibit sufficient skill or competitive ability". It ain't gonna happen. Zero chance. The union would come down on the Sox like a ton of bricks. It would make a farce of arbitration and be demonstrable bad faith. As Jacko said' date=' Ortiz would win and get the best of both worlds, he'd be set free and the Sox would have to pay his entire salary.[/quote']

 

 

That's interesting. Thanks for putting that up.

[Muggah]

Should we read between the lines here? Merloni said that Ortiz is the worst player to go into arbitration. He said that DO is so sensitive and emotional that to hear the Sox lay out the reasons why he shouldn't get 16M will be detrimental to him. "Even if he wins' date=' he's going to leave there with different feelings."[/quote']

 

 

They don't call him 'Big Diva' for nothing. If this gets to the meeting and Diva is forced to sit and listen to the FO's case against him it's a safe bet there'll be a sharp increase in his annual 'me first' Diva episodes. It'll be interesting to see how BV handles him.

[a700hitter]

They don't call him 'Big Diva' for nothing. If this gets to the meeting and Diva is forced to sit and listen to the FO's case against him it's a safe bet there'll be a sharp increase in his annual 'me first' Diva episodes. It'll be interesting to see how BV handles him.

His agent should really tell him not to attend. No good can come from that, unless he figures that the FO will not be able to get too harsh in their criticism if they have to say it to his face. Hmmm? Maybe it is a way of censoring the and having them hold back just a little. It's probably a sound strategy on his part. Nevermind.

[Muggah]

His agent should really tell him not to attend. No good can come from that' date=' unless he figures that the FO will not be able to get too harsh in their criticism if they have to say it to his face. Hmmm? Maybe it is a way of censoring the and having them hold back just a little. It's probably a sound strategy on his part. Nevermind.[/quote']

 

Has there been a case of a player not attending? Probably has, but I don't remember one offhand.

[a700hitter]

Has there been a case of a player not attending? Probably has' date=' but I don't remember one offhand.[/quote']I don't know.