 |
|
|
| |
« Pierre A Trade Possibility | Main | Astros Win Loretta Case »
Astros Win Loretta Case
Arbiters ruled in favor of the Astros over Mark Loretta today, saving the team $2.15MM. I guess the 20% pay cut thing doesn't apply here. With the Jose Valverde savings, that makes $3.65MM for Houston. That's probably right around what Shawn Chacon will get.
Three hearings remain undecided; the players will probably snag at least one victory in the cases of Ryan Howard, Oliver Perez, and Francisco Rodriguez. Keith Law explains again why the Phils paying Howard more than they have to does not make sense.
Historically teams have won 57.7% of cases. So we might've expected the teams to be 3-2 instead of 5-0 this year but it's not exactly a huge upset.
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b9a69e2010536837b76970b
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Astros Win Loretta Case:
Comments
Verify your Comment
Previewing your Comment
This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.
As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.
Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.
Top Stories
Search MLBTR
MLBTR Features
Recent Posts
Rumors By Team
Monthly Archives
Live Chats
Tuesdays at 2 p.m. CST
its actually an ARBITRATOR.
Posted by: thenextgm08 | February 19, 2008 at 10:11 AM
Arbiters... somebody's been playing a little too much Halo...
Posted by: stellar | February 19, 2008 at 10:26 AM
it can actually be EITHER
Posted by: Darin | February 19, 2008 at 10:26 AM
That being said, Tim is actually correct. Arbiter is the correct term. The terms are really interchangable.
Posted by: stellar | February 19, 2008 at 10:27 AM
I just used what the article said, arbiter.
Posted by: Tim Dierkes | February 19, 2008 at 10:49 AM
I think Omar should try to get Ollie by himself and see if he is willing to hammer something out longterm, similar to what A-Rod and Santana did. I think Oliver definitely would be interested in a longterm deal right now, for something around 13 or 14 per. What doesnt make sense to me is arguing over 1.8 mil or so when you probably want to keep this guy here for a while. You would think you would do all you can to keep him happy and increase your chances of bringing him back.
Posted by: nrmax88 | February 19, 2008 at 11:05 AM
Article VI.D.(1) of the CBA states:
"A Club may not tender, sign or renew a Player UNDER RESERVE to the Club pursuant to Article XX(A) of this Agreement and paragraph 10(a) of the Uniform Player’s Contract to a Uniform Player’s
Contract that provides a salary for Major League service that constitutes
a reduction in excess of 20% of his previous year’s salary or in excess of 30% of his salary two years previous."
The key phrase being the words "under reserve" up there at the beginning. The 20% salary reduction thing has never applied to free agents who accept offers of salary arbitration. It only applies to players with less than six years of service time, who have no choice but to either accept the team's offer or go to arbitration.
But you all knew that already, right?
Posted by: mac_1103 | February 19, 2008 at 12:54 PM
BTW, that Law article is awesome.
Posted by: mac_1103 | February 19, 2008 at 12:57 PM