The Nationals beat John Lannan in arbitration, so the left-hander will earn $5MM in 2012, Adam Kilgore of the Washington Post tweets. A hearing took place yesterday to determine whether Lannan should earn $5.7MM, as he and his representatives at CAA requested, or $5MM, as the Nationals offered.
All of the Nationals' arbitration eligible players are now signed for 2012, as MLBTR's Arbitration Tracker shows. Lannan was arbitration eligible for the second time this offseason and will remain under club control through 2013. The 27-year-old posted a 3.70 ERA with 5.2 K/9 and 3.7 BB/9 in 184 2/3 innings last year. It marked the third time in four seasons that he has started 30 games, pitched 180-plus innings and kept his ERA under 4.00.
“It’s like what Lannan said… you look for the person who will benefit, and, uh, uh…”
“I am the Walrus”
I can’t believe a club would take a player to a hearing over $700k.
Even though it seems like clubs are playing with monopoly money, think of what 700k can buy; several salaries of typical (not players) employees, smaller renovations and additions, more hospitality and other entertainment, etc. There is other ‘product’ to be sold to the buyer (fan) than just players.
Isn’t this the same organization who gave Jayson Werth his ridiculous contract? I think that is the definition of “Penny-Wise, Pound-Foolish”.
I have a hard time believing that the two sides dug their heels in so much that they couldn’t find middle ground between a $700k difference.
There are many variables that go into this equation. You never know what happened with the two sides, who wouldn’t budge and for what reasons. I agree that the best situation is that you find middle ground to keep everybody happy and decrease any risk of paying ‘too much.’ I’m hoping this is a small reflectance that they have learned their lesson after giving out a bad contract to be a bit more careful. John Lannan is going to be on your roster whether you win or lose the hearing, Jayson Werth needed to be swayed to join their team in one or another (money being the largest factor). Believe me, I thought the Werth contract was atrocious and a mistake, but in terms of investment and what he might contribute financially through many mediums, the Nationals probably thought they would make some of that back through what he could bring to the table. I think this is comparing apples to oranges, while the Werth signing showed financial recklessness, I think they originally thought it was a good idea to shovel out available capital in hopes that they could ignite a steady increase in fanbase and make all of that back, if not more, in years to come. I think Werth’s potential production had only a small influence on the money that they gave him. Just my personal opinion however, that contract could have been signed when the GM was drunk for all I know.
There are many variables that go into this equation. You never know what happened with the two sides, who wouldn’t budge and for what reasons. I agree that the best situation is that you find middle ground to keep everybody happy and decrease any risk of paying ‘too much.’ I’m hoping this is a small reflectance that they have learned their lesson after giving out a bad contract to be a bit more careful. John Lannan is going to be on your roster whether you win or lose the hearing, Jayson Werth needed to be swayed to join their team in one or another (money being the largest factor). Believe me, I thought the Werth contract was atrocious and a mistake, but in terms of investment and what he might contribute financially through many mediums, the Nationals probably thought they would make some of that back through what he could bring to the table. I think this is comparing apples to oranges, while the Werth signing showed financial recklessness, I think they originally thought it was a good idea to shovel out available capital in hopes that they could ignite a steady increase in fanbase and make all of that back, if not more, in years to come. I think Werth’s potential production had only a small influence on the money that they gave him. Just my personal opinion however, that contract could have been signed when the GM was drunk for all I know.
$700k is a lot of money and I think the concern over “bad blood” from these hearings is way, way overblown by the agents.
Lannan: “I’m good.”
Nationals: “No, you’re not.”
Judge: “Gonna have to side with the Nationals, here.”
Well here’s the thing, 700k isn’t much, but imagine if EVERY player in the MLB made 700k less how that would impact the TFS (total financial situation for those who don’t know)
by explaining what TFS means, you just defeated the entire purpose of shortening it into an abbreviation
He’s just laying the groundwork for later posts. Then he can say “TFS… you all know what THAT means” and we will all nod.
edit – what obsessions said. that scallywag
$700,000 * 25 * 30 = $525,000,000
Given that the minimum salary is less than $500k and lots of second and third year players are making less than $700k, that would leave a significant chunk of MLB players in negative numbers.
Given that the minimum salary is less than $500k and lots of second and third year players are making less than $700k, that would leave a significant chunk of MLB players in negative numbers.
Nationals “beat” Lannan? I should’ve bought tickets..heard it was a good hearing
I hope the $700,000 was worth Lannan walking. A guy who can give you 30 starts and keep his ERA under 4 isn’t that plentiful.
With a 3.7 BB/9, “walking” is obviously something Lannan is very familiar with lol!
he’s not walking just because they went to arbitration
Pride is a huge factor for athletes and by all accounts the arbitration hearings get contentious and are known to cause bad blood between the player and the front office.
I know that if I had been putting in 30+ starts in three seasons and posted an ERA under 4 for a team and they took me to a hearing over less than a million bucks, I would walk unless their offer was far and above the highest. And many athletes would have that same mentality.
If by “walking” you mean two years from now. So long as the Nationals want him, he is theirs until after the 2013 season.
That’s exactly what I meant. If I were Lannan and the Nats had been planning on keeping me, which appears moot now, I would walk unless they offered me far and above what the next best team was offering.
Taking a player to arbitration over less than a million is insulting.
This is about his future earnings and trade value. In next year’s market he’d take arbitration too, I’d think. The sabermetric arguments were pretty easy to make against him, and have been for four years, while he beats those peripherals for 750 innings and doesn’t ever miss starts. I guess the problem is he’ll never seem like a guy with upside, still, if his command improves, he could be a very effective starter for a long time.
Start of a long Nationals winning steak? I think so.
Man, all the headlines about players losing arbitration are really aggressive. “Nationals beat Lannan,” “Lannan loses,” etc. But when a player wins it’s usually just “So-and-so wins arbitration case”. Surely this cannot be good for team/player relations. Yes I’m aware that the media has no interest in fostering good relations.
“no soup for lannan”
Lannan would be excellent pitching at Safeco Field if the Mariners are interested in acquiring him along w/ Adam LaRoche for either outfielder Casper Wells or Travon Robinson, minor pitcher James Paxton or Tujuan Kelly, and Chone Figgins that can be traded to another NL team interested in him.
Lannan would be excellent pitching at Safeco Field if the Mariners are interested in acquiring him along w/ Adam LaRoche for either outfielder Casper Wells or Travon Robinson, minor pitcher James Paxton or Tujuan Kelly, and Chone Figgins that can be traded to another NL team interested in him.
Well played, sir. Well played.
See: Nationals aggressively shopping John Lannan, MLBTR, Page 1.