Arbitration Deadline: 9 PM Tonight

by Rev Halofan on Nov 30, 2008 10:30 PM PST in News Comment 31 comments

Five of six Angel Free Agents will yield the angels high draft picks if they turn down an offer of arbitration. However, some of them might accept the offer. The Five Are: Garret Anderson, Jon Garland, Darren Oliver, Francisco Rodriguez and Mark Teixeira.

MLB.com Coverage Link

Garland and Teix are the lest likely to accept the offer, so those are no-brainers. Any one of the other 3 would not be the worst one-year contract the club ever signed. Juan Rivera is also a free agent but will not yield any draft picks. This is the thread to discuss who we need and who we cannot risk inviting back into the fold.

Ninja Reagins must cut bait under the crescent moon and stars this evening...

Poll

Who Would Be the Better One-Year Contract for 2009?

G.A.

146 votes

Frankie

128 votes

274 votes | Poll has closed

0 recs | Comment 31 comments |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

I think you offer to all but Anderson

although since GA is now with Boras, you might be able to get away with that too.
it’s a given that Garland, Tex, and Frankie will decline.
If Oliver accepts, great. i wouldn’t mind having him back.

Kotch would've had that.

by howiestheman on Nov 30, 2008 10:35 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

GA

if he’s offered arbitration, does that mean he’s garanteed more then he made last season?

by HALO_86 on Dec 1, 2008 9:57 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

not necessarily

but i still wouldn’t want to take that risk.

Kotch would've had that.

by howiestheman on Dec 1, 2008 10:14 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

ARBITRATE OFFER THEM ALL

THEY WILL ALL DECLINE AND WE WILL RESTOCK THE FARM SYSTEM

stay humble in a ferari

by MYSPASCOBAR on Nov 30, 2008 11:01 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

All but GA

I have some second thoughts about offering arbitration to Garland. If he accepts arbitration, it will not be the worst thing in the world.

Teixeira............Everything else can wait.

by hauldog on Nov 30, 2008 11:33 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

I really want Oliver back

the guy doesn’t get enough credit around here for his work the last two years. He’s a durable, dependable go-to veteran who gets tough outs, and keeps his cool. He seems to hold it together when the rest of the bullpen stutters from time to time.

Bring him back in…hell, for more than one year if you want. He certainly deserves Speier’s contract more than Speier.

by Caseys Kiss of Death on Nov 30, 2008 11:35 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

Yes on Oliver...

Let’s remember that Speier was lights out in 2007. I know that 2008 stunk and he might possibly be done, but there is a decent shot that 2008 was a down year and he bounces back to usefulness in 2009.

Relievers are harder to predict than other players because their workload is so sporadic and done in short spurts. I wouldn’t be astounded if Speier puts up an ERA in the mid-3’s this year and earns his $4+ million salary this year…

Jim Scully

Jim Scully Home
Haloville - Land of the Halos

by jimmuscomp on Dec 1, 2008 12:25 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Nor would I

I should have clarified that. I don’t think Speier is “done” by any stretch, but rather that in retrospect, Oliver (who I think Rev gave a “D+” in our 2006 offseason signing grades) was the better relief signing from the “Just Inspired” era of contracts. And after watching Oliver pitch in ’06 with the Mets, I knew there was a damn good chance he would be. Definitely deserves a 2 yr/$8m (or more) contract extension. At the best, he gives us what he gave us the last two years, and earns every penny, at the worst, he gets retroactively paid for giving us more than we paid him for for two seasons.

by Caseys Kiss of Death on Dec 1, 2008 12:50 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Do All

Angel Pitching, Angel Defense - get past that.

by vladtheimpaler on Dec 1, 2008 2:22 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

Offer them all

There’s no reason not to. Worst case scenario would be Anderson accepting AND winning a big deal, but I can’t see them even going to arbitration if he were to accept. Oliver is the most likely to start sucking, and I only say that because middle relievers are notoriously unreliable year to year, but I’d be willing to take that chance. I’d like to see him back regardless.

by LA Seitz on Dec 1, 2008 7:27 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

all but GA

even if you don’t want Garland and Frankie back for one year — the Angels could EASILY trade either of them in spring training or mid-season. Teams are dying for any SP at the trade deadline and will give up a lot to get a quality guy like Garland while being on the hook for only the remainer of the year.

Same for Frankie. Loot how much some RPs are been traded for over the past 2-3 years. Even guys who are setup or 7th inning guys.

The Angels would be STUPID not to offer arbitration to all but GA.

Go Angels!

by Four Ts on Dec 1, 2008 7:44 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

No to GA

They don’t want Garland back, especially at $12m+ since they need the payroll elsewhere, but unless the market falls completely on its arse, he wants a multi-year contract, so he’ll reject it.

If GA said yes to arbitration and gets market value, then there was no point in buying out the option in the first place – it doesn’t make sense to offer it to him

No one’s giving up 2 draft picks for Oliver, so my guess is that unless we give him multiple years, he’ll accept arbitration and everyone will be happy

The interesting one is Frankie – the market is over-run with closers this year. He could legitimately accept arbitration play another year in Orange County and file next year when it will be more of a sellers market – he’ll get ++$$$ in 2010 with more teams interested in his services (assuming his arm doesn’t appear to decline in 09). Didn’t Maddux do something similar a few years ago with Atlanta?

I see red people

by The Limey on Dec 1, 2008 8:01 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

GA's option has already been paid

So add that $3M onto whatever he’ll get in arbitration (I may be wrong about this, but I think that’s how it’d work).

I agree with the rest of your comment.

I was uncool before uncool was cool.

by WiHaloFan on Dec 1, 2008 8:05 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Yup, that's kind of what I meant...

…the fact that they bought out his option means that arbitration is highly unlikely – they’d be paying market rate + $3M. It would be the height of foolishness.

If something is agreed with GA and the Angels, it’ll be agreed through less formal means.

I see red people

by The Limey on Dec 1, 2008 8:21 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Offer it to everyone. GA knows we dont want him, he has pride

by ihearhowie2.0 on Dec 1, 2008 8:59 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

No to GA. No to Garland. Yes to the others.

The Angels can’t run the risk of either GA or Garland saying yes to arbitration. Ideally, Frankie comes back to the Angels on a 1-year deal for 2009. I still have major concerns about his diminished velocity, making a long-term deal very, very risky.

Ain't no stoppin' us now. We got the groove!

by Fan Since 1981 on Dec 1, 2008 2:04 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

seriously

the angels could trade garland well before the season started with a one year deal….and they’d have several teams wanting him. The agrument against garland being offered holds no water, imo. But history shows the angels (stupidly) are ones to not offer and thereby lose FAs without compensation — so i will be surprised if they do (although like i said, there is no reason not to).

Go Angels!

by Four Ts on Dec 1, 2008 4:35 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Garland is getting worse and he's badly overpriced for what he does.

His K rate in 2008 fell to 4.12 K/9 while his control has gotten worse. His only plus is that he pitches a decent number of innings, but he is too hittable. In the 2nd half of 2008 opponents cranked out an AVG/OBP/SLG of .322/.363/.489 against Garland, which resulted in an ERA of 5.99.

Garland’s best option is to sign with a NL team.

Ain't no stoppin' us now. We got the groove!

by Fan Since 1981 on Dec 1, 2008 5:19 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

crazy

there’s no risk in offering arbitration to either GA or Garland because neither will accept it. Scott Bora$ doesn’t do arbitration for veterans like GA. Garland will get a multi-year offer from more than one team. There is zero likelihood that either accepts a one-year deal. Besides, given their production, neither is likely to get a raise in arbitration. The Halos could do a lot worse than one more year of Garland in the 5th spot in the rotation. He also becomes trade bait.

by jjackflash on Dec 1, 2008 5:32 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Boras did do it with Maddux a few years back.

If the market isn’t what he wants it to be, he has advised his clients to take it and hit the market a year later. And with Garland, accepting arbitration would likely give him a higher yearly salary than a free agent contract would, though there have been some dumb free agent contracts given to pitchers recently.

by snowhor on Dec 1, 2008 5:40 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I feel guilty

I voted Frankie.

It’s not logical at all, really. But I was watching game 7 of 2002 the other day, and I see GA knock in three runs with a double. And Lackey maintained it. But there it was – it was like in one decisive swing Garrett gave it to us, gave us 2002.

Oh well.

(On a side note, watching Frankie in game 7 – wow – totally different animal. Nothing in the dirt, everything on target.)

"I've got more action than my man John Woo
And I've got mad hits like I was Rod Carew" - Shure Shot, The Beastie Boys

by Zoe Necrosis on Dec 1, 2008 5:19 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

Arbitration Answer

Yahoo Sports

ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA (TICKER) —The Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim on Monday protected themselves should any of their coveted free agents decide to leave this winter.

The Angels announced that they have offered salary arbitration to first baseman Mark Teixeira, righthanders Francisco Rodriguez and Jon Garland and lefthander Darren Oliver.

Teixeira............Everything else can wait.

by hauldog on Dec 1, 2008 5:22 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

Sounds level-headed to me. Good job, Ninja.

by snowhor on Dec 1, 2008 5:41 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Reasonable

I would have offered GA as well, theory being that he doesn’t want to take the chance of going year-to-year at this point in his career, and he wants to play more than one more year. Even in the unlikely event that GA would have accepted arb & prevailed there are worse things in the world than one more year of GA. But I find it exceedingly unlikely that he would have settled for a one-year deal.

In any even, nothing much to complain about. None of those guys is going to accept arbitration, with the possible exception of Oliver (who might be at the point in his career where he does want to take it year-by-year).

by jjackflash on Dec 1, 2008 6:03 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

GA

you really think GA is going to get more then 11M on the open market? or more then 20% less then 11M if thats all the Angels offered and he lost the case? how much do u guys think he’s really worth?

by HALO_86 on Dec 1, 2008 6:16 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

It would have been a no brainer for GA to accept arbitration had it been offered. There's no way he'd get anything from another team that was even remotely close to what an arbitrator would have given him.

by snowhor on Dec 1, 2008 6:52 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

years

he wants more than one; arbitration results in a one-year deal, and I simply cannot believe that he’d be willing to sign for just one year, and hope that he does well enough in 2009 to get yet another contract. GA would never have accepted arbitration.

by jjackflash on Dec 2, 2008 12:36 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I do not think he gets more than a year.

Teixeira............Everything else can wait.

by hauldog on Dec 2, 2008 9:22 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

The one year salary he would have gotten in arbitration would have been more than any team would be willing to give him in total of a multi-year contract.

Look at everyone who was denied arbitration offers throught MLB. Non-star free agents are in for a rude awakening this year.

by snowhor on Dec 2, 2008 9:56 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Where was the 'neither' spot?

I Don't Tolerate Intolerance!

by Giant among Angels on Dec 1, 2008 10:07 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

Type A & B FA?

the team that signs a Type A FA loses their own pick only if they are in the bottom half of the first round? and the team also recieves a sandwich pick between 1&2 round? if your in the top half of the first round you lose nothing? what does the team that loses a type A FA get if a team from the top half of the 1st round signs him?

the team that signs a Type B FA loses their 2nd round pick automatically?

by HALO_86 on Dec 3, 2008 12:17 PM PST reply actions 0 recs