Categorized | Mark Timmons

The Patient is Comatose

The Patient is Comatose

No one realizes more than I do that this is a 162 game season.  I am not worried about our pitching – it will come around (do you really believe that Kuo and Belsiario will continue to have double-digit ERA’s?  Sherrill?  I worry about him, but he can’t be THAT bad, can he?).

Three for the Road?

I am worried that Joe Torre has lost this team. It’s not the result (the fact that the Dodgers lost), it the fashion in which they are losing – passionless, uncaring, disconnected, sloppy, selfish and flat.  These guys are going through the motions – they are not even trying.  Oh sure, you can point to this or that and say “yes they are trying” but it’s a malaise that is permeating the entire team.

You can’t fire the players, so the management has to be held accountable, and now I am including Ned Colletti into that equation.  Ned should not go to the air waves to single out Matt Kemp.  It’s one thing to say the team is playing without passion or dogging it.  It’s quite another to single out a single  player.  It might be true, but it was wrong.

Joe Torre is a Hall-of-Famer, buy he has lost this team.  Look at what a shambles the Rockies were in last year – then they fired Clint Hurdle, and Jim Tracy (Jim Freakin’ Tracy) re-energized the team BIG TIME!  Sometimes change for changes’ sake is just what is needed! It’s time for sweeping changes:  Torre, Mattingly, Bowa, Schaffer, Honeycutt are all responsible.

We have a solution “in-house” in Tim Wallach.  It’s time for change, just 22 games into the season.  In 2007, the Dodgers started 13-8 and failed to make the playoffs, proving it’s not how you start – it’s how you finish.  Let’s finish this thing.

I believe that Ned has assembled a team that can win, and if he also believes that, he has to fire Joe Torre and he has to do it soon!  Failure to act means that Ned must also believe this team can’t win… and if that’s the case, he should be fired!  This is a “bottom line business” .

RANTS & RAVES:

  • Clayton Kershaw still throws too many pitches, but he is improving in several areas.  I think both Chad and Clayton would benefit with a new pitching coach.
  • I hope Garrett Anderson is French, because he is Toast!
  • Charlie Haeger is in danger of being DFA’s and I doubt he will get claimed.
  • Ben Sheets of the $10 mil contract has a 1-2 record with a 5.00 ERA (27 IP, 36 H, 14 vBB, 14 K’s) – so far, that looks like a dope fiend move by Billy Beane.
  • Theo Epstein doesn’t like like the same genius right about now.
  • The Mets looked like a trainwreck before the season and now are in high cotton – Mike Pelfrey is 4-0 with a 0.69 ERA – The Mets had so many problems before the season and have overcame them all.  Kudos to Jerry Manual.
  • Ex-Dodgers:  Edwin Jackson – 1-2 with a 6.67 ERA (28 IP/36 H)   Brad Penny – 3-0 with a 0.94 ERA; Dave Duncan has him throwing strikes (Carpenter, Wainright and Penny may be the best 1-2-3 starters in baseball); Derek Lowe has a 5.79 ERA; Randy Wolf – 2-1, 3.34 ERA
  • The Rockies optioned Chris Ianetta back to AAA – WOW!
  • Barry Zito is unconscious.  Can he keep it up?  If he does, the Giants top 3 is as good as the Cards.
  • Carlos Monasterios gets the start on Saturday instead of Heager and Ely looks to get another start as well.

Dodger Chris had this to say Yesterday (I feel his pain too):

I cannot express how pissed off I am about the state of my Dodgers. Unfortunately due to the Mccourts divorce I am afraid this may continue for the next few years to come. Their inability to shore up the starting pitching in the offseason has proven to me that they have decided not to give this team a chance. Maybe Frank needs to devalue the team so he will only have to give half to his ex-wife at a much lower value. The fact that she needs 1 million a month makes me want to puke and shoot myself in the head at the same time!!!! These people are DISGUSTING!!!! I lost my job a year ago and the only thing that kept me together last year was watching my team compete. Well, Mccourts, here I am still out of a job struggling like everyone else in this world right now and you two have the gaul to not spend a dime on the team while spending millions on vacation homes and lawyers. The only thing we can do to force the Mccourts hand is to BOYCOTT ALL GAMES until they show us that they are willing to invest in this team as much as we all have everytime we go to a game! IF we can cut into attendance I believe this will send a clear message to the Mccourts that DODGER FANS will NOT stand for their BULLSHIT and continue to feed their wallets while they DO NOTHING to improve this team. I WILL NOT GO TO ANOTHER GAME until they do SOMETHING about our pitching!!! PLEASE join me Dodger fans…We have to send these people a message!!!!!!!

Frank, you have a problem that can only be cured by winning!

About Mark Timmons

When you see the invisible, you can do the impossible!

72 Responses to “The Patient is Comatose”

  1. DRomo says:

    I agree with the angst directed at the orginization as a whole, but the winning or lack there of should luie on the shoulders of the players this year. Fundamentaly this team is playing horroble. And what kills me is the guys are the same, for the most part, from last year who played solid. Last night I was at the game and Kemp heard boos loudly when he misplayed the liner to him that ultimately lost the game for us. But the blame isn’t all his. Kershaw couldn’t find the plate and walked the first two batters of the game. Our offense is dead without Manny and Furcal.

    As for all the hype of Colletti singling out Matt Kemp, how many of you heard the whole interview? Ned was asked specifically about Kemp, so actually the host singled out Matt. Ned should have handled it WAAAYYY better than that but he certainly didn’t go into the interview with an axe to gring with Matt.

    And for the record does anyone not agree with what he actually said? Don’t we all feel that way? So he had the balls to say it. If only he would have attacked Bills? Maybe next interview.

  2. Badger says:

    Just for the record, Wolf should be 3-0. Hoffman blew a save for him.

    The rest? eh, except for the fact you aren’t worried about the pitching I guess this morning I can’t find a will to disagree with you.

    It could all turn around quickly. I still say let’s wait a while, but, we also might want to keep a Plan B warmed up in the bullpen.

    I also think Chris is on to something. I ran that flag up the pole a couple of years ago and got no response. And when it comes the Dodgers, a million people could boycott and all it would do is open up some seats for a million other people.

    I don’t know what the answer is, but I do know that the lineups we have been fielding will not get the job done. If we are stuck with this pitching, and a junior varsity team, we might as well figure on being sellers at the deadline.

  3. Badger says:

    Saw this on another site:

    “This lineup, with Anderson, Carroll, Blake, DeWitt and Belliard off the bench, is one that probably doesn’t scare anyone.

    We need Manny and Furcal in there. I have hope for DeWitt, but not confidence in him. We already miss Hudson. Wolf is 2-1 with Milwaukee, but should be 3-0 as Hoffman blew a save for him.

    Big mistake losing those guys. Compounded mistake by not getting compensation for the loss.

    Anderson has to go. If Manny is not coming back, I hate to say it, but we won’t win the West with Reed Johnson in left field.

    And I wonder if Furcal is going to be in and out of the lineup all year? If so, with Carroll at SS, no need to print any post season tickets.”

    Anyone care to comment?

  4. Mark Timmons says:

    The lineup issue is obvious, but assuming the Dodgers should have offered arbitration and that the players would have refused is silly. That simply is not rooted in reality. Let’s look at what Wolf brings by the end of the season. Hudson is at .281, which is nopt worth $8 to $10 mil a year…

  5. Mark Timmons says:

    I would think that if Raffy cannot go by Sunday, they will DL him and bring up a real SS. Carroll is an emergency SS at best.

  6. Badger says:

    “bring up a real SS”

    who? from where?

    It is my opinion you are still missing the point about Hudson and Wolf. But, I respect your point. Though I really doubt Hudson would have accepted our offer, had he accepted, arbitration would have cost the Dodgers what Hudson made last year. And, let’s face it, the Dodgers cannot afford Orlando Hudson. So, we get Blake DeWitt. I don’t think there is much doubt who will bring more to their respective team over the course of the season.

    Same is true with Wolf. I really doubt he wanted to stay in L.A.. So, he doesn’t accept either. And that is the position most baseball experts take, and that is the point most Dodger fans see as valid. Let ‘em walk if they want, but don’t let them walk for free.

  7. Mark Timmons says:

    Hu from Taiwan via Albaquacky.

    Wolf did want to stay in LA – he loved it.

  8. Badger says:

    “Wolf did want to stay in LA – he loved it”

    Yeah, maybe. I don’t know that, maybe you do.

    But the following is the typical talk on the subject – from Bleacher Report:

    “As a Type A free agent, it was believed that he might once again struggle to find a team willing to offer him a multi-year deal as the signing club would be forced to surrender draft pick compensation to Los Angeles.

    There was even talk that Wolf might be better served to accept arbitration and return on yet another one-year deal.

    The perennially short-sighted Dodgers, however, were worried Wolf would accept and didn’t want to pay him the $8-10 million it was believed he could earn via arbitration.

    As such, the club foolishly chose not to offer him arbitration and he immediately became one of the most desirable free agents on the market.

    As a Type A free agent, the Dodgers would have received Milwaukee’s first-round draft pick and a sandwich pick in next year’s amateur draft.

    Instead, the Dodgers receive nothing, the Brewers receive a second ace, and Wolf receives nearly $30 million and, something he’s coveted for years, job security.”

    Wolf is much better off where he is. Everybody is happy – except most Dodger fans, who are saying “WTF?!”

    • Ken says:

      Dead horse. There was no money to sign Wolf or Hudson because of the Investment Debt and the Company paid personal expenses (treated as distributions) at the end of 2009.

  9. troyfromwv says:

    Here’s what I think.

    The Dodgers felt they were coming into ’10 with 4 slightly above average to above average starters in Kershaw, Billz, Kuroda, and Padilla.

    And frankly, I’d agree with that assessment.

    Then they assumed a McDonald, Elbert, Haeger, Lindblom, or a Stults would fill the #5 spot admirably, with an odd man out doing a decent job in the case of an injury to the “Big 4.”

    The bullpen was great last season, so I’m assuming they assumed the same results this season. Especially since it’s virtually the same pen as last year.

    It just hasnt worked out as planned. A plan I really don’t disagree with.

    Who would have known…
    1) Padilla wouldn’t be healthy.
    2) Billz would basically suck. (Except his last start.)
    3) Haeger, McDonald, Lindblom, and Elbert would all be God Awful right now, the latter 3 in Triple-A.
    4) Belisario would have Visa problems, then start slow with team.
    5) George Sherrill would tank..(meanwhile ,in Denver, Joe Beimel…nevermind)

  10. Ken says:

    Glad to hear that McDomald finally pitched a good game. Maybe he has grown up in the last week as he saw several other AA pitchers race past him on management’s depth chart.

    When things are as bad as they are with the Dodgers, a few DFA’s are absolutely needed in order to get the attention of the players. If that is not motivation, then a few coaches getting fired should do the trick. First Torre scapegoat ahould be BOB, unless of course he is Torre’s brains then both of them should go now.

  11. Mark Timmons says:

    Old McDonld is on the Farm.

    E, I, E, I, O!

    Badger,

    So, the reason the Dodgers didn’t offer Wolf and Hudson is that they are all complete dumba$$es and couldn’t afford to pay the draft picks they would have received?

  12. Mark Timmons says:

    Troy,

    6. Kuo would not be ready until May…

  13. Mark Timmons says:

    Has Frank fired Torre yet?

  14. Badger says:

    I don’t know the reason for the bonehead decision not to at the very least offer arbitration. You have to ask the boneheads who made that decision. You have access, ask them. But don’t expect a. a coherent answer and 2. the truth.

    I agree with troy’s assessment. The Dodger brASS figured somebody would step in at #5, and that anybody could play 2b. Nice call. So far, not so good. And btw, welcome aboard troy. I welcome your opinions.

    Ken, I agree. To pay Hudson and Wolf what they were worth could not be done. Knowing that, the Dodgers figured it wasn’t worth the “gamble”. And that is how far the Dodgers have fallen with this ownership.

  15. mark says:

    You can continue to insist it’s about the money (and it always is), but Wolf AND Hudson would have cost us $18 to $24 mil in arbitration.

    To put that in perspective, we could have spent $25 mil for Ryan Howard and Traded Loney for a pitcher with that kind of money.

    WOLF AND HUDSON ARE ROLE-PLAYERS, NOT FOUNDATIONAL PLAYERS. TO SPEND 1/5 OF YOUR TEAMS’ PAYROLL ON THEM IS FELONY STUPID. AND I AM YELLING BECAUSE IT MAKES NO SENSE TO SIGN THOSE KIND OF GUYS FOR THAT KIND OF MONEY.

    THAT’S JUST REALLY STUPID!

    • Ken says:

      Until I see an official financial statement from Frank I will no longer believe that the Dodgers could legally offer contracts to Wolf and Hudson without Bud’s approval. And were did Wolf go, to Bud’s family’s team. haha Bud has Frank by the baseballs.

  16. lawdog says:

    It’s even worse than Badger is making it on the failure to offer arbitration to Wolf and Hudson. The state of the rules right now are such that a team can refuse to honor the arbitration contract and let the player walk after the fact. Sure, it would piss off the players union, but it’s been done before and as far as I know the rule hasn’t ever been changed.

    The Dodgers front office either knows this or they are dumb asses. The real reason arbitration wasn’t offered is that McCheap didn’t want to have to pay the bonus money to 4 extra first round and sandwich round picks. And that’s just the way it is with our luvable owners. We’d feel a lot better right now if we had 4 extra top picks entering our farm system. Sure, we’d be a genuine 24 karat crappy team right now, but we’d have hope for improvement over the next 3 years, and we’d have more players to trade for July 31st fixes–if we manage to pull ourselves back near contention by then.

    Hunker down folks. It’s going to be one long season.

  17. JDavis says:

    Even if we kept Wolf we still needed an Ace. This was the problem last year before the season started, please don’t use the Cards.

    I stop going to games last year, boycott the Zazi!!!!!

    I can’t drink inside my car I just paid $15 to park. I’ve never been thrown out of a game until 08 drinking to the gate, drinking inside the car and those two times they took my tix!! another for calling the pitcher a fagg. I’ve been to many stadiums and dodger staduim sucks now!

  18. Michael says:

    I don’t think Joe will be going anywhere unless HE decides to. How would you fire him? It would be like telling Tony Soprano he wasn’t the boss or telling Captain Queeg that it wasn’t his ship. As for our season, it is what it is. You can’t reverse time and start all over again. I’m afraid were going to have to live it. How about a 2011 mantra; Worst to First. As for Barry Zito, I hear him and Tim Lincecum are smoking buddies now. Love da bums:} GO JAZZ

  19. lawdog says:

    Need to get rid of Torre but lack the cajones to tell him to his face that he’s toast? Where is Don Corleone when you need him, eh? :shock:

  20. lawdog says:

    Maybe we should hire the CEO of BP as our next GM?

  21. mark says:

    Lawdog,

    1. I don’t know if that’s the case (refusing arbitration) but it’s NEVER been done that I know of. If it has been, give me chapter & verse;

    2. “The real reason arbitration wasn’t offered is that McCheap didn’t want to have to pay the bonus money to 4 extra first round and sandwich round picks.”

    Do you really believe that? They build Camelback Ranch for about $50 mil, add assistant GM”s and minor league coaches out the wazoo, and then don’t want to pay a few picks which would have cost them less than Belliard, Carroll, Anderson and the Ortiz’s? I respectfully submit that you are clinically insane if you believe that!

  22. Mark Timmons says:

    Brad Ausmus, Ronnie Belliard, Garrett Anderson, Reed Johnson, Jamie Carroll.

    Would we have been any worse with AJ Ellis, Chin-lung Hu, Xavier Paul, Jamie Hoffman and Ivan DeJesus?

    If the Dodgers really wanted to be cheap, they would not have signed
    Brad Ausmus, Ronnie Belliard, Garrett Anderson, Reed Johnson, Jamie Carroll.

  23. lawdog says:

    It happened back in the 80s. An aging slugger was offered arbitration by an American League team, I think it was Detroit or Cleveland–might have been Chicago. He won in arbitration and the award was obviously too much as he’d hit about .230 the year before with 30 home runs. The team would not sign the contract, the player released and he hooked on with another team for a lot less money a few days later. He didn’t last the next season. He could still rake the long ball but his average dipped into Mendoza land and he retired.

    I wish I could remember the name of the player–but I can’t at the moment. It’s true though. I followed it very closely when it happened. There is probably some information about it on a on line source like Wikipedia

  24. Mark Timmons says:

    Lawdog,

    The arbitration process is different for players who have less than 6 years service, but if a free agent accepts arbitration, IT IS BINDING AND THE CLUB CANNOT OPT OUT.

    END OF STORY!

    Read it with lawyers’ eyes and you will see I am right!

  25. lawdog says:

    From Cot’s on the rule. You’ll note that the awarded contract is not guaranteed and gives the team an out–if they take action before the 16th day of the season. I swear to you this was done once long ago.

    From Cot’s:

    In January, the player and the club each submit a salary figure for arbitration. The parties may continue to negotiate until the case goes before a three-person panel of professional arbitrators between Feb. 1-20.
    At the hearing, each party has one hour to argue its case and 30 minutes for rebuttal. The player is required to attend and generally represented by an agent. A club executive or attorney usually represents the club.
    Criteria the panel may consider include the player’s contribution to the club in terms of performance and leadership, the club’s record and attendance, “special accomplishments,” the salaries of comparable players in his service-time class and, for players with less than 5 years of service, the class one year ahead of him. The parties may not refer to team finances, previous offers made during negotiations, comments from the press or salaries in other sports or occupations.
    The panel, without opinion, awards the player a one-year, non-guaranteed contract at one salary or the other. If the player is cut before the 16th day before the season begins (March 14, 2007), 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 (between March 15 and March 31, 2007), he is entitled only to 45 days’ termination pay.

  26. lawdog says:

    End of story… :oops:

  27. steevo17 says:

    This is the most pathetic group of whiners in the world…OK maybe not the whole world, but in the Dodger world.

    I am glad to see all the haters coming out…and in April no less.

    The Dodgers definitely don’t need more fans like you guys. I am done with this site and all it’s negativity.

    While I am not happy with our performance up to now, I’m knowledgeable enough in this game to realize there are 5 months left in the season.

    So while you guys are giving up already I’m going to continue to cheer my Dodgers on… whether they are in 1st place or last place.
    This is the same team that has been to back-to-back NLCS and its amazing to me to see how quickly the boo-birds came out.

    I’m not kidding myself into thinking all is fine with this team. And criticism, SOME constructive criticism, is definitely merited. I agree Torre is a detriment to our team right now: his lineups and his handling of the bullpen are chafing me raw. I have never been a fan of Honeycutt and I still haven’t made up my mind on Mattingly.

    But foremost, this is a team that is more than capable of turning it around quickly and, more importantly, has time to do it if “quickly” is not in the cards.

    I will be interested to see who will be first to admit their ignorance to all this when the Dodgers are in first place come October. But I guess ignorance is truly bliss.

    DODGERS IN 2010!!!! Suck on it.

  28. Mark Timmons says:

    Steevo,

    I hope you aren’t talking about me, because I think this team has the talent to win. I just don’t think we will with Torre and Honeycutt.

    Is that negative? Then I’M POSITIVE we won’t win with Torre and Honeycutt!

  29. Mark Timmons says:

    Lawdog,

    Post the link to what you are quoting because there is no way that is correct!

    Once a player accepts arbitration it is binding upon both parties and cannot be rescinded.

  30. Mark Timmons says:

    Lawdog,

    You are confusing players who have less than six years service with actual FREE agents. Read this and note the BOLD:

    The Club’s Arbitration Offer Requirements
    (1) A club must offer contracts to players under its control by no later than December 12;

    (2) If a player has filed for free agency, his former club must offer him arbitration by December 1. If the player accepts by December 7, the player is placed back on the team’s roster, and the two sides may continue to negotiate or go to an arbitration hearing. If the free agent player declines the arbitration offer, the sides may continue to negotiate.

    (3) The club’s salary offer to a player under its control may not be less than 80% of the player’s total compensation from the prior year, and may not be less than 70% of his compensation from 2 years earlier. These rules, however, do not apply to free agents who are offered arbitration.

    The Arbitration Procedure and the Arbitration Hearing
    Arbitration works as follows: In January, the player and the club each submit a salary figure to a three-person panel of professional arbitrators. hearings are conducted between the 1st and 20th day of February.

    At the hearing, each party has one hour to present its case to the panel, and then has an additional 30 minutes for rebuttal. The player must attend the hearing, but is usually represented by his agent. A club executive or attorney usually represents the team.

    The arbitration is a “high-low” proceeding, during which each side presents its case for why the player should be awarded the requested salary in the upcoming season. In deciding to award the higher or lower salary, the panel may consider the following criteria:

    (1) the player’s contribution to the club in terms of performance and leadership;

    (2) the club’s record and its attendance;

    (3) any and all of the player’s “special accomplishments,” including All-Star game appearances, awards won, and postseason performance;

    (4) the salaries of comparable players in the player’s service-time class and, for players with less than five years of service, the class one year ahead of him.

    The parties may not refer to team finances, previous offers made during negotiations, comments from the press or salaries in other sports or occupations.

    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.

    Read more at Suite101: How Baseball Arbitration Works: MLB Rules Governing the Eligibility and Process of Arbitration http://baseball.suite101.com/article.cfm/how_baseball_arbitration_works#ixzz0mddSlxPf

  31. Mark Timmons says:

    Offering a FREE AGENT arbitration and then cutting him after the player wins is not possible and has never happened, which makes you entire argument totally flawed!

  32. Mark Timmons says:

    I rest my case.

    Summary Judgement is in order.

  33. Ken says:

    Usually, a coma does not last more than a few weeks. However, sometimes a person stays in a coma for years and will be able to do very little except breathe on his or her own. Most people actually do come out of comas, and are able to return to the normal lives they had before they got sick. When coming out of a coma, a person will often be confused and can only slowly respond to what’s going on. Over time and with the help of therapists, however, many people who have been in a coma can make a lot of progress. They may not be exactly like they were before the coma, but they can do a lot of things and enjoy life with their family and friends.

    We will see.

  34. Badger says:

    The old steevo returned, and then runs away. Adios steevie.

    “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.”

    Isn’t that what ldog said? I would think the rule is in there to protect a financially restricted team (the Dodgers) from losing a quality player (Wolf and Hudson) to another team (any team with more money than the Dodgers) without compensation for the loss. I said early and often that the Dodgers should have offered arbitration, if the players accepted, and there is a large group of people who believe both players would NOT have accepted, then the team offers a contract they think is fair and affordable and the player counters. As was pointed out back then, the MLB teams more often than not win in arbitration. If in this case the player wins, the team has a grace period to decide if they can afford the player or not.

    What am I missing? Ken? Ldog?

  35. Mark_Timmons says:

    I understand how Steevo feels. Can you read English?

    These rules, however, do not apply to free agents who are offered arbitration.

    Read it slowly!

    Your arguments are hollow, wrong and furthermore erroneous in their entirity!

  36. Mark Timmons says:

    “There are a large group of people who start at their bottom-line and work up who believe that.”

  37. Mark Timmons says:

    Lawdog says a team did this back in the 80′s. HOGWASH! Chapter & Verse. It never happened!

    I am done writing about this to people who lack the comprehension of a 5th grader

    • Ken says:

      Does not matter whether LawDog’s facts are correct because the new Basic Agreement was signed effective for 2007 through 2011. The Basic Agreement is revised each time it is negotiated and executed. Therefore, if you can not find a rule in the current agreement it may no longer exist.

  38. Ken says:

    Can the Dodgers score 2 runs against starter with an ERA of 16.20?

  39. Michael says:

    I hate to be facetious[spell check] but if you subscribe to the games, they are now broadcasting the opposing teams batting practice. Lighten up and smile, it can only get better, I THINK.

  40. Badger says:

    geez, mabye steevo has the right idea.

    You have stated repeatedly what the rules ARE NOT. But, you have not stated what they ARE.

    Here is what it says regarding FREE AGENT arbitration right after the part you cut and paste that you ended in bold – “These rules, however, do not apply to free agents who are offered arbitration.”

    “The Arbitration Procedure and the Arbitration Hearing

    Arbitration works as follows: In January, the player and the club each submit a salary figure to a three-person panel of professional arbitrators. hearings are conducted between the 1st and 20th day of February.

    At the hearing, each party has one hour to present its case to the panel, and then has an additional 30 minutes for rebuttal. The player must attend the hearing, but is usually represented by his agent. A club executive or attorney usually represents the team.

    The arbitration is a “high-low” proceeding, during which each side presents its case for why the player should be awarded the requested salary in the upcoming season. In deciding to award the higher or lower salary, the panel may consider the following criteria:

    (1) the player’s contribution to the club in terms of performance and leadership;

    (2) the club’s record and its attendance;

    (3) any and all of the player’s “special accomplishments,” including All-Star game appearances, awards won, and postseason performance;

    (4) the salaries of comparable players in the player’s service-time class and, for players with less than five years of service, the class one year ahead of him.

    The parties may not refer to team finances, previous offers made during negotiations, comments from the press or salaries in other sports or occupations.

    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.”

    That’s it. That’s baseball arbitration. Not that hard, right?”

    and I also found this:

    Q: What is the record between players and owners in salary arbitration cases?

    Since 1974, and including 2009, arbitrators have ruled on behalf of the players 207 times and clubs 280 times. Although the number of players filing for salary arbitration varies per year, the majority of cases are settled before the arbitration hearing date. Typically, approximiately 90 percent of the players filing for arbitration reach new agreements before a hearing.

    So yeah, I can read. I can read the same sites that you do. And look – I too can cut and paste. And what it says is JUST WHAT LDOG SAID IT DID!

  41. Mark Timmons says:

    Badger and Lawdog,

    You both need to go back and read this real slow:

    What Players Are Eligible for Arbitration?
    A player and club who cannot agree on a contract may agree to salary arbitration, provided that the player has enough service time in the majors. The following players are eligible for arbitration:

    (1) Players with at least 3 but less than 6 years of service in Major League Baseball;

    (2) The top 17 percent of players with at least 2 but less than 3 years of Major League service. These are known as “Super 2” players. To qualify as a Super 2, a player must have accumulated at least 86 days of service in the previous year. Historically, the cutoff point for Super 2 status is 2 years, 128 days of service, though the requirement has been as high as 2 years, 140 days in years past.

  42. Mark Timmons says:

    It does not apply to FREE AGENTS, just the two groups mentioned above.

    Get it?

    NOT FREE AGENTS!

    Understand?

  43. Mark Timmons says:

    IT DID NOT APPLY TO HUDSON AND WOLF WHO WERE FREE AGENTS.

    It would apply to Kemp, Broxton, Ethier, Loney and those guys.

    NOT FREE AGENTS!

    DO YOU GET IT YET?

  44. Mark Timmons says:

    That has been a linchpin of your argrument and it is erroneous!

  45. Mark Timmons says:

    Actually in December (12-17-09), Ken argued the same thing that Badger and Lawdog are arguing with me.

    Don’t tell me that I have beaten two attorneys again?

    ;)

  46. Mark Timmons says:

    If I were to try to read, much less answer, all the attacks on me, this shop might as well be closed for any other business. I do the best I know how; the very best I can; and I mean to keep doing so until the end. If the end brings me out wrong ten thousand angels swearing I was right will not make any difference.”

  47. Badger says:

    I do wish you would stop talking to me like I am idiot.

    Here is the full article that YOU used to present your argument. Please note the paragraphs that that follow your “These rules do not apply to free agents” comment. Especially the last one. That is key in this argument. Does the team have an “out” after a Free Agent wins in arbitration?

    How Baseball Arbitration Works
    MLB Rules Governing the Eligibility and Process of Arbitration
    Feb 23, 2008 James Lincoln Ray

    A quick and dirty explanation of Major League Baseball’s player arbitration process.

    If you are a baseball fan, then you have probably heard a lot about the recent arbitration hearings between players and their clubs that have taken place during the 2007-08 offseason, the most notable of which involved Ryan Howard, the Philadelphia Phillies, and $10 million. What you may not know, however, are the rules governing arbitration.

    That’s the fault of the jokers on ESPN and Fox Sports, who will tell you tons of crap that you don’t care about, but don’t bother to explain the very basic rules and regulations governing the game’s economy. Idiots. But, don’t worry, because this little article will explain everything you need to know about Major League Baseball arbitration. Here goes.

    (A)What Players Are Eligible for Arbitration?
    A player and club who cannot agree on a contract may agree to salary arbitration, provided that the player has enough service time in the majors. The following players are eligible for arbitration:

    (1) Players with at least 3 but less than 6 years of service in Major League Baseball;

    (2) The top 17 percent of players with at least 2 but less than 3 years of Major League service. These are known as “Super 2” players. To qualify as a Super 2, a player must have accumulated at least 86 days of service in the previous year. Historically, the cutoff point for Super 2 status is 2 years, 128 days of service, though the requirement has been as high as 2 years, 140 days in years past.

    (3) Players who have filed for free agency may also go through the arbitration process if their former team makes an offer of arbitration and the player accepts.

    (B)The Club’s Arbitration Offer Requirements

    (1) A club must offer contracts to players under its control by no later than December 12;

    (2) If a player has filed for free agency, his former club must offer him arbitration by December 1. If the player accepts by December 7, the player is placed back on the team’s roster, and the two sides may continue to negotiate or go to an arbitration hearing. If the free agent player declines the arbitration offer, the sides may continue to negotiate.

    (3) The club’s salary offer to a player under its control may not be less than 80% of the player’s total compensation from the prior year, and may not be less than 70% of his compensation from 2 years earlier. These rules, however, do not apply to free agents who are offered arbitration.

    (C)The Arbitration Procedure and the Arbitration Hearing
    Arbitration works as follows: In January, the player and the club each submit a salary figure to a three-person panel of professional arbitrators. hearings are conducted between the 1st and 20th day of February.

    At the hearing, each party has one hour to present its case to the panel, and then has an additional 30 minutes for rebuttal. The player must attend the hearing, but is usually represented by his agent. A club executive or attorney usually represents the team.

    The arbitration is a “high-low” proceeding, during which each side presents its case for why the player should be awarded the requested salary in the upcoming season. In deciding to award the higher or lower salary, the panel may consider the following criteria:

    (1) the player’s contribution to the club in terms of performance and leadership;

    (2) the club’s record and its attendance;

    (3) any and all of the player’s “special accomplishments,” including All-Star game appearances, awards won, and postseason performance;

    (4) the salaries of comparable players in the player’s service-time class and, for players with less than five years of service, the class one year ahead of him.

    The parties may not refer to team finances, previous offers made during negotiations, comments from the press or salaries in other sports or occupations.

    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.

    That’s it. That’s baseball arbitration. Not that hard, right?

    Read more at Suite101: How Baseball Arbitration Works: MLB Rules Governing the Eligibility and Process of Arbitration http://baseball.suite101.com/article.cfm/how_baseball_arbitration_works#ixzz0me64LuDZ

    I refer you again to the last paragraph in the article. The paragraph about a “non guaranteed contract” and the termination pay if the player is released. I will not ask you to read it “real slow”, just please read it and tell me what you think it actually means. The way I read this, it says on B paragraph 2 “If the free agent player declines the arbitration offer, the sides may continue to negotiate.” Then it says in B paragraph 3 (3) “The club’s salary offer to a player under its control may not be less than 80% of the player’s total compensation from the prior year, and may not be less than 70% of his compensation from 2 years earlier. These rules, however, do not apply to free agents who are offered arbitration.” which actually sounds like a contradiction to paragraph 2. Could it be that what it means is the conditions listed in paragraph 2 and only those conditions, are not applicable to FA’s?

    It is still not clear to me, and that is why a lawyers interpretation would come in handy here. What good is that compensation rule if it doesn’t apply to “Free Agents”? Makes no sense to me. There would be no protection for impecunious franchises such as the current Los Angeles Dodgers.

  48. Mark Timmons says:

    Here’s the complete answer: It applies to players who receive arbitration but does not apply to FREE AGENTS. Why do you think no player has ever been released (except the one Lawdog can’t remember)?

    Because it does not apply to FREE AGENTS, only arbitration eligible players.

    Sorry to talk to you crazy, but there’s a reason it has never happened – it can’t happen! Once a player win an arbitration case, the team is bound by it!

  49. Mark Timmons says:

    Oh, there is no protection for teams. Do you really think the MLBPA would allow it?

  50. Badger says:

    Then tell me, why do they use the term “offer arbitration” to these free agents that, if they decline said offer of “arbitration” the team gets draft picks according to the “type” free agent the player is?

    I sure hope ldog finds that player that this happened to. None of this is making sense to me. If the player is a free agent and can do whatever he wants, then why the whole compensation issue regarding whether he does or he doesn’t “accept arbitration”?

    I am confused. And the Lakers just lost the lead.

  51. Mark Timmons says:

    I warned you about Artest. He’s a curse.

  52. Badger says:

    Why are you still up? Get some sleep dude.

    I would rather have Ariza back, but, he opted out. Artest is still a decent defender.

    Dogs up in the 8th and I am done. Maybe this is the game that turns them around.

  53. Ken says:

    Basic Agreement (December 2006) Effective for 2007 through 2011
    Article IX – Termination Pay
    B. Spring Training
    A Player whose Contract is terminated by a Club under paragraph 7(b)(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.

    Uniform Players Contract
    By Club
    7.(b) The Club may terminate this contract upon written notice to the Player (but only after requesting and obtaining waivers of this contract from all other Major League Clubs) if the Player shall at any time:
    (1) fail, refuse or neglect to conform his personal conduct to the standards of good citizenship and good sportsmanship or to keep himself in first-class physical condition or to obey the Club’s training rules; or
    (2) fail, in the opinion of the Club’s management, to exhibit sufficient skill or competitive ability to qualify or continue as a member of the Club’s team; or
    (3) fail, refuse or neglect to render his services hereunder or in any other manner materially breach this contract.

    7.(c) If this contract is terminated by the Club, the Player shall be entitled to termination pay under the circumstances and in the amounts set forth in Article IX of the Basic Agreement. In addition, the Player shall be entitled to receive an amount equal to the reasonable traveling expenses of the Player, including first-class jet air fare and meals en route, to his home city.

    Procedure
    7.(d) If the Club proposes to terminate this contract in accordance with subparagraph (b) of this paragraph 7, the procedure shall be as follows:
    (1) The Club shall request waivers from all other Major League Clubs. Such waivers shall be good for two (2) business days only. Such waiver request must state that it is for the purpose of terminating this contract and it may not be withdrawn.
    (2) Upon receipt of waiver request, any other Major League Club may claim assignment of this contract at a waiver price of $1.00, the priority of claims to be determined in accordance with the
    Major League Rules.
    (3) If this contract is so claimed, the Club shall, promptly and before any assignment, notify the Player that it had requested waivers for the purpose of terminating this contract and that the contract had been claimed.
    (4) Within five (5) days after receipt of notice of such claim, the Player shall be entitled, by written notice to the Club, to terminate this contract on the date of his notice of termination. If the Player fails to so notify the Club, this contract shall be assigned to the claiming Club.
    (5) If the contract is not claimed, the Club shall promptly deliver written notice of termination to the Player at the expiration of the waiver period.

    7.(e) Upon any termination of this contract by the Player, all obligations of both Parties hereunder shall cease on the date of termination, except the obligation of the Club to pay the Player’s compensation to said date.

  54. Badger says:

    Ken, does the last sentence in this paragraph apply only to THIS paragraph, or does it, as Mark suggests, mean that Free Agents are not bound by any of what is written in the entire article?

    (B) 3. The club’s salary offer to a player under its control may not be less than 80% of the player’s total compensation from the prior year, and may not be less than 70% of his compensation from 2 years earlier. These rules, however, do not apply to free agents who are offered arbitration

    • Ken says:

      From where did you obtain your quote? Your quote appears very similar to Article VI – Salaries; Part D – Maximum Salary Reduction, which does not apply to free agents, but only to restricted players.

      It appears to me that everyone has been in error. That Mark was closer to the truth months ago when he was arguing pragmatism as oppossed to his current position. The Arbitration rules do not appear to be completely relevant to a player’s termination pay.

      That the rules for termination pay are the same for everyone. However, the greater the time in service of the player the higher the level of leverage of their agent and the union, e.g.. Andruw Jones v. Repko. No one is going to argue that Repko was wrongfully terminated because he never statistically peformed at a high level and was passed by several Dodger Propects. However, Andruw Jones appearantly earned the right to become a slacker and he was not terminated either during spring training or during the season under the MLB Agreement as many of us had hoped. In fact he essentually received a generous payout over a number of year without interest to leave town. (Why did Frank not go to war on this issue? I think that he should have.)

      How often has a quality player been offerred arbitration and then showed up in camp more out of shape or arrogant than A. Jones? Presumably that must be the unwritten standard for terminating a player that received an arbitration award.

      There is a collective bargaining agreement in place which prevents the player from being terminaed at will. The MLB Agreement does specify the grounds for termination for casue. Many of us continue to wonder why A. Jones was not terminated for cause. If he was not, then will anyone ever be?

      If Hudson and Wolf were oferred arbitration, did not withdraw, and received an award, then they could only have been terminated for cause under the grounds listed in the Uniform Players Contract. They are person of high moral character that would never have allowed themselves to violate the employment agreement. Therefore the Dodgers would have been required to not terminated them and, in my opinion, would have been in violation of the econmic/debt terms of the MLB Agreement. therefore, in my opinion, the Dodgers were required to obtain approval from Bud before even offerring arbitration to both of them.

  55. Badger says:

    So, this paragraph:

    “The panel, without opinion, awards the player a one-year, NON-GUARANTEED CONTRACT at one salary or the other. IF THE PLAYWER 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.”

    does not have any teeth whatsoever?

    If the Dodgers would have offered arbitration to both Hudson and Wolf, with the intent to negotiate a contract similar to the one they had just been paid, and the players held out for more money, it goes to arbitration. If Wolf asks for the $12-16 million Mark thinks he would have, and the Dodgers offer the $8 million he was paid the year before (he won 11 for crying out loud, it isn’t like he was a 20 game winner) does anyone really believe Wolf would win? If the Dodgers lose, and Wolf is awarded $16 million, and the Dodgers in Spring Training decide he is not going to be worth that kind of money, which he clearly is not, they cannot cut him per the paragraph above?

    I say again, none of this makes sense to me.

    The Dodgers are clearly financially handicapped this year. I just don’t know how anyone cannot see that. If what Mark says is true, the reason arbitration was not offered was out of fear they would lose. A team operating out of fear is a team that is vulnerable.

  56. Badger says:

    or, like Ken says, Bud told them to back off, let these players go, and get nothing in return. I can see Bud wanting to something like, to weaken the Dodgers, sign Wolf himself, and srengthen his teams chances at winning. Maybe there is something to those who believe Bud had an ulterior motive for allowing a guy like McCourt to get his hands on the Dodgers.

  57. Bill Russell says:

    Just checkin in. Now I’m checkin out. GO Lakers

  58. lawdog says:

    From the material suplied by Ken, it would appear that the CBA has specific language for terminating a player. It cannot be at will and specifies what circumstances justify such action.

    Many moons ago when the one case came up that I’ve seen and followed, different language must have been in place. Technically, if the club undergoing arbitration hasn’t signed the awarded contract, they are not under contract since the old contract ran out. Under that scenerio, where is the contract to termoinate? It hasn’t been executed by both parties at that point in time. The rules governing “termination” technically wouldn’t apply

    I think what we have hear is a loop hole akin to the “Poison pill” restricted free agency deal whereby the Seattle Sea Hawks lost Hutchinson, then the best OG in the NFL because the contract he signed with the new club contained provisions in it which were not possible for the Hawks to mach due to exigent circumstances. I figured it only happened the one time (apparently) because there was an understanding that clubs should not do this to their players as it renders the arbitration process a ruse and a sham–or else the newer collective bargains specifically prohibit this kind of conduct (which is probably more likely.)

    It did happen once way back in time when Free Agent arbitration was young. But besides that isolated case many years back I haven’t seen or heard of it happening again. (One of these days I’ll remember the player’s name and I can find the specifics for y’alll.) ;)

  59. Badger says:

    So, if a “free agent” is offered arbitration, and wins, the team must offer and guarantee that contract, no matter what. The “non guaranteed contract” provision is just a bogus statement.

    And I thought MLB set this up to protect both player and team. Guess I am just living in fantasyland.

    What if the team just says “no way” are we paying that player that amount? Hit the bricks Wolfie and take the two draft picks with you.

    Tell you what, if some jury awarded Wolf anywhere between $12-$16 million after 11 wins, I would not offer the contract. Go ahead, sue me. You made $5 mil last year. You ain’t worth $9 million, let alone that many million. You wanted free agency? Be free. Fly away. Live long and prosper Wolfman.

    Talk about a rule that could create bad blood. That one does it in technicolor.

    But, I guess as long as Bud is happy, the rest of us should be happy too.

  60. lawdog says:

    I dunno Badge. What you say here is exactly what happened once back in the early 80s and the team said hit the road. I don’t think they even forfeited the draft picks–but I’m not certain of that. But apparently it’s never happened since.

    The language hasn’t changed. Nowhere is it called “binding” arbitration which would make it final and binding like Mover says. I just don’t know.

    Maybe somebody can show different language now that talks about a “guaranteed” contract for free agents that isn’t the same as the arbitration process for the younger players who do not have a right to free agency. If they still use the same language for both and do not have language somewhere else which says the contract for a free agent is different than that for a non-free agent, then the team would still have the right to opt out by refusig to sign the contract–even though it’s only happened once.

  61. Badger says:

    So what is the penalty if the team just says – “not gonna duit”.

Trackbacks/Pingbacks


Leave a Reply

Mandatory Daily Dodger Reading