Dick Allen

By Tim Dierkes | November 13, 2018 at 3:08pm CDT More than 200 players are eligible for salary arbitration this offseason, and the deadline to tender each of these players a contract for the 2019 season is November 30th. That also represents the deadline to inform arbitration eligible players whether they will receive a (non-guaranteed) contract, or else become free agents. The two parties will have another roughly two months to work out salaries before arbitration hearings (if necessary) kick off in February. As we do each year at MLBTR, we’re providing a list of players whose teams could potentially elect not to tender them a contract, thus sending them into the free-agent pool earlier than expected. It should be emphasized that we’re not indicating that each of these players is likely to be non-tendered (though that’s certainly the case with some of them). Typically, we list any player for which we can envision at least atr ar 10-20 percent chance of a non-tender. It should be noted that many of the borderline non-tender candidates below will be traded this month rather than simply cut loose. Other borderline candidates may be presented with an offer that is notably lower than their projections and could accept the “take it or leave it” ultimatum rather than being non-tendered. For a full list of each team’s arb-eligible players, you can check out M

I have no idea, but what does it matter? Here's something about Rich Hill and the Red Sox from several years ago. If Avi got non tendered, would you be OK with the Sox re-signing him in February for scraps if he couldn't find a team? I don't see any argument here. If he doesn't like the Sox offer, he gets non tendered. Your way, he gets non tendered. The only difference is offering him a lesser contract gives him at least one more choice. Finally, the Sox did not tender reliever Rich Hill, who underwent Tommy John surgery last June and isn't expected to be ready until midseason. The Sox are free to continue negotiating with Hill - and, according to a baseball source, are interested in doing so -- but he is now officially a free agent. Had the Sox tendered him a deal, he would have been eligible for salary arbitration despite being unable to pitch for at least half the season. Players who go through the arbitration process are virtually guaranteed to make at least what they made the previous year and the Sox didn't want to run that risk with Hill.

So you think it's anti player to negotiate a contract below the 20% if the end result if he didn't agree to it was exactly the same? Here's a couple of Brewers from last year. Look where it said Vogt most likely avoided a non tender. Where's the grievance? Stephen Vogt had trouble sleeping Thursday night, but it was the good kind of insomnia. The kind that comes with agreeing to a new contract. The veteran catcher agreed to a $3.065 million deal with the Milwaukee Brewers for 2018, avoiding salary arbitration. And, in all likelihood, avoiding being non-tendered a contract. The Brewers and reliever Jeremy Jeffress also avoided arbitration Friday by agreeing to a one-year deal with two club options that could keep him in Milwaukee for three more seasons. Jeffress received a $1.7 million salary for 2018 and a $50,000 signing bonus, with club options for $3.175 million in 2019 and $4.3 million in 2020. He can earn an additional $2.2 million in incentives each season for innings pitched and games finished.

You can google avoid arbitration and you will find hundreds. Here is one on the White Sox guys last year. Notice this line: The White Sox haven’t gone to arbitration with a player since 2001, when they did so with relieve Keith Foulke. Garcia and Sanchez can continue negotiating a deal with the team in the coming weeks. https://chicago.cbslocal.com/2018/01/12/white-sox-avoid-arbitration-with-4-players-still-have-2-unsigned/ The fact of the matter is, an arbitration contract is not guaranteed.

No it's not. Guys sign contracts while arb eligible all the time. If anything you may be doing him a favor by giving him an option to stay. If he doesn't like the offer, he's non tendered, like if they didn't offer him arb or anything. For all he would know, no other team may offer him what the White Sox offered him. Moustakis got $6.5 million last year. Who is more valuable?

What would be the argument ?

There is no reason the White Sox should offer Avi arbitration. Offer him something less if they want to keep him. If he refuses, good luck. There is no way he gets anything close to $8 million if they let him go.

That makes a little more sense from a Mariner's perspective. To give up Diaz for Cano's money would be the ultimate in ownership cheapness.

As I stated, I draw the line at wife beaters. Child molestors as well. I know they probably all have faults, just like all of us, that most do not know, but beating women is a huge character flaw. Add that to the fact he hasn't outplayed Yolmer Sanchez the last couple of seasons, and the answer whether he is worth the trouble is pretty easy.

The fact is, Avi is a free agent in a year. If he is an absolute must, you can always bring him back. His arb number is too high for his past production. Except for 1 season, he is a replacement level player, who always has something wrong with his legs. That usually doesn't improve as you get older. No one is going to give you anything for him. Spend the money elsewhere. I like the guy, and agree he has a lot of potential, but it's time.

The issue with Avi is you give him $8 million for 2019. If he plays like he did in 2017, do you then give him $100 million? $8 million is a pretty high price to pay for a flip that won't yield much return. And he really isn't a guy who has earned a long term commitment.

Cubs filled their 40 today. May be waiver time again.

Avi has some talent, and he plays hard, but except for 2017, he has been a replacement level player. There is a slight chance he turns into a JD Martinez sized mistake, but it is time to say good bye, and I have been one of his biggest supporters. But like fathom said, replace him with something that may be useful. Not the rebuild position fillers.

Throw the wife beating away, and Addison Russell hasn’t been very good the last 2 seasons. But I do draw the line with wifebeaters. If the Sox ever picks him up, it would be like Brett Myers to me. I want the team to win, but I would want him to suck so bad.

Belle's clause actually called for him to remain one of the 3 highest paid guys in baseball. For what Harper could demand, this type of thing could be perfect. How many players besides Trout are going to get more than him the next 4 or 5 seasons? Then if they do, let him walk, and let him get paid to decline by someone else. There is probably something that could work, but probably too many obstacles for the White Sox to overcome.

Maybe, but if he's anything like Moncada, he's going to get rung up on pitches not in the zone anyways.

The best free agent he signed is a player you absolutely hate.

Yes, I don't see it. It would be counterproductive. Might as well hang on to him and their top young guys, or just trade their young guys for max returns. Punting on good young players just to eat Cano's money will set them back years after they would have been done paying Cano anyway. They knew when they signed him the last 2 or 3 years were going to be painful in all probability. That's how these things work. It's a bonus when that doesn't happen. Just suck it up.

Actually, the Sox pretty much started the opt out trend with Albert Belle. It saved uncle Jerry a lot of money. They could get around it by using a similar clause as Belle had. If someone is making more money, the Sox can match it, if they refuse, they player can opt out.

Right. Plus the timelines people are using are timelines with teams that didn't get 10 or 11 prospects, many top 100 for 3 players. This rebuild should be in high gear right now. Not with division crowns per se, but some competitive baseball.

They are going to have to offer the most anyway. When you are in this particular stratosphere though, I don't know how much higher you really have to get not to include an opt out. It's not like they are going to spend all this money anyways.

We already know the White Sox aren't going to sign these guys. The problem the front office will have by letting all their interest in them leak out is not that they are now being cheap, but the top guys don't want the White Sox money. They think they have a better chance to win now and in the future elsewhere.

Why would he need a scapegoat?

These TV deals are long term. While it probably helps the team is really good and popular from the outset, the parties negotiating look at this long term. It's not imperative the Sox win 90 games in 2019 to max out.

As you said in another thread, you don’t let bias or emotion get in the way of your views, despite popular opinion.