Baseball Musings
Baseball Musings
January 19, 2006
Home Town Discount

There's an interesting story in the Boston Globe concerning Bronson Arroyo:

Bronson Arroyo, in an apparent show of allegiance to the Red Sox, is extremely close to overriding the advice of his agent, Gregg Clifton, and agreeing to a three-year contract that will pay him between $11.5 million and $12.5 million, according to multiple sources with knowledge of the negotiations.

The upside for the 28-year-old righthander is financial security and the chance to remain with the Sox for at least the next three seasons, two tremendous opportunities for a pitcher who just three years ago was placed on waivers. But, that upside -- being signed at a fixed cost for a duration of some length -- also would appear to make Arroyo more vulnerable to being dealt to a team such as Tampa Bay, which is seeking affordable starting pitching and has a player the Sox covet in shortstop/leadoff hitter Julio Lugo

Reports are that Arroyo is not getting a no-trade clause in his contract. Does he have a verbal agreement that he won't be traded? He's making himself cost effective; is that enough to keep him in town?

Update: It's a done deal.


Posted by David Pinto at 07:42 AM | Pitchers | TrackBack (0)
Comments

I hope he doesn't get traded. While not a number one or two starter, he does a pretty good job in the rotation, and he has become one of my favorite players. I actually met him Tuesday night here in Gainesville when he came to a restaurant to sign autographs and perform tracks from his new album (!). He signed a ton of stuff for my wife and I, and was very friendly. My wife had him sign a Red Sox themed 'Magic 8 Ball,' and he asked it what would happen to Johnny Damon this year (it responded '3 Strikes') :) He sat at the bar and talked to fans for at least two hours. Silly, but I was kind of impressed by his approachability.

Posted by: Steve Masy at January 19, 2006 08:40 AM

I think it's perfectly respectable to be impressed by an athlete's approachability. I'm a Yankee fan, but I've always thought highly of Arroyo, and enjoyed watching him pitch. He's a soft-tossing junker with great control and a mind for pitching.

I'd hope for his sake that he has a verbal agreement that would give him assurance of staying in Boston, because that does sound like one tasty contract, very tradeable indeed.

Posted by: Dave S. at January 19, 2006 09:31 AM

I met him about a year ago at a free autograph signing and he was very gracious to my son. For some guys Boston can be a great place to play.

Posted by: Jack Tanner at January 19, 2006 09:59 AM

He's asking to be traded. His only recourse is that the Red Sox will take a minor PR hit, trading a guy who signed at a discount because he wanted to be in Boston. There is a chance -- a minor one -- that this will prevent others from doing the same.

If I were his agent, I'd insist on a minor escalator clause in case of trade; say, $1.25m/year and no-trade clause applied after he goes to the other team. This still makes the contract tradable but gets him compensated and protected for the period in question.

Posted by: DNL at January 19, 2006 10:34 AM

I guess the no-trade clause invoking a Manny no-trade clause issue is gone, since Manny is 10-5 now.

Posted by: Joel W at January 19, 2006 10:48 AM

This is an interesting twist on the "hometown discount" issue that I've never read before. It certainly makes sense. But if accepting a hometown discount increases your chances of being shuffled off to Baseball Purgatory, that's a great incentive for a player to go for every last dollar he can get.

Imagine the same scenario with that clean-shaven pinstriped backstabber, Johnny Damon: instead of signing with the Yankees, he accepts $12 million less to stay in Boston. Then gets traded... say, to the Cubs for Mark Prior. His loyalty would cost him a bunch of money, and he wouldn't get to stay here anyway.

Posted by: JSW at January 19, 2006 10:52 AM

Well, Damon would have been a 10-5 guy after a year anyway. I has assumed that the Sox were trying to sign Arroyo to make him easier to trade, but this is a curve. It would look really bad now if they signed him and traded him, and if they did, they should expect every FA to ask for max. money.

An escalator clause makes sense.

What I wonder is this. Maybe they plan to KEEP Arroyo, but trade Clement. If Arroyo is discounted, they can throw say 4million to the team that takes Clement. If they do, Clement's contract becomes 15 million over two years to the team that gets him, which is quite palatable in today's market. Arroyo's cost would then be the equivalent of 16 million, or a little less, for three years.

Posted by: PVM at January 19, 2006 12:39 PM

It's on ESPN that he signed, 12 mil for three years. No other details.

Lets hope the trade hawks and wrong and he gets to play where he wants instead of holding out for the all-mighty dollar.

~Mark

Posted by: Mark at January 19, 2006 02:22 PM

AP is also carrying the story that he signed $12m/3 yrs.

Posted by: Jason at January 19, 2006 02:34 PM

Isn't it true that a team can't trade a signed free agent in the first year of the contract. If that is the case, maybe Bronson got some similiar language even though he isn't a free agent yet.

Posted by: darthmiles at January 19, 2006 02:39 PM

i thought he was their chip in trying to get jeremy reed o coco crisp? does that mean clement is now the chip?

Posted by: tony flynn at January 19, 2006 03:20 PM

Isn't it true that a team can't trade a signed free agent in the first year of the contract. If that is the case, maybe Bronson got some similiar language even though he isn't a free agent yet.

I've never heard that before. I don't think it's true. Otherwise, why would Pavano's name have come up at the deadline last year?

Posted by: Benjamin Kabak at January 19, 2006 03:53 PM

If you trade a player in the middle of multi-year contract, he can demand a trade after playing a season for the club. That's what happened with Javier Vazquez this year.

Posted by: David Pinto at January 19, 2006 04:03 PM

Sounds like there's no no-trade clause in the contract. Trading Arroyo away at this point looks very very bad for Boston, and I doubt even 'statheads' (a group I count myself among) would be willing to take the PR hit for that kind of sharp practice. It's a very very reasonable contract, though (I like Arroyo as a player, but feel he's mediocre at best as a pitcher), so perhaps, as PVM suggets, Boston plans to use some of the free money to help pay for Clement's contract as they trade Clement away.

Of course, I think trading Clement away is premature at this point, with little to no information about which Curt Shilling will be pitching for the Sox next year.

Posted by: NBarnes at January 19, 2006 07:53 PM

If he took less than market and failed to get a no-trade, he deserves whatever happens.

Posted by: Al at January 19, 2006 10:15 PM

My understanding is that a team cannot trade a free agent who was last under contract with another team (thereby excepting Arroyo) until something like May 15th. I'll see if I can source that rule.

Posted by: DNL at January 20, 2006 12:24 PM
Post a comment









Remember personal info?