Hopefully Bryce and his new bride Kayla didn’t have to go through arbitration either. Photo via mlb.com/Harper’s instagram
The Nats have 4 remaining players who are arbitration eligible but whom the team has not yet signed for 2017 (they signed Jose Lobaton to a $1.575M deal, slightly below MLBTradeRumors’ estimate.
Here’s who they have left, what they made in 2016 and what MLBTradeRumors (which is usually pretty accurate) projects for 2017:
I think the team will pay slightly more than the projection for Bryce Harper (hopefully signing a 2-year deal to take him to FA), will pay Derek Norris the projected value ($4M exactly seems like a nice number), slightly less than the projection for Anthony Rendon and slightly less for Tanner Roark under the guise that he will continue to be under-rated for what he provides. I may be completely wrong. Lets just hope they actually SIGN the players and don’t go to arbitration.
Here’s a sordid history of all Arbitration cases going back to the Nats origin in 2005.
Some interesting factoids about this history (all numbers up to last year’s pre-2016 season cases).
- Records: Clubs are 28/45 (62%), players are 17/45 (38%)
- Washington leading “arguing” club with 8 of 45 cases since 2005. Now, many of those cases were under the prior regime/Lerners are cheap mantra, but Mike Rizzo has done his fair share of petty arguing, taking Sean Burnett to arbitration over $150,000 and most recently Jerry Blevins over $200k.
- 42% of all cases since 2005 by just 3 clubs, and Washington is the leader in this sorry category with 8 cases since 2005.
- 12 of 30 clubs in the game havn’t had an arb argument since 2005. In other words, 12 of the 30 teams get the fact that these things suck.
- Smallest amount argued over: $125k by Miami in 2007 and $150K by Wash in 2010 w/ Burnett
- Largest amount argued over: $3M by Philadelphia w/ Ryan Howard (player won)
- Biggest player demand: Francisco Rodriguez $12,500,000 (player lost)
- Biggest club offer ($10M twice; both club wins)
- Just 2 of 45 players who have argued arb cases remain with their teams to 2015. None of the 2016 arb cases remain with their teams at this point in the off-season.
- 23 of 45 players who argued w/ their clubs were traded or released THAT same season. This is pretty damning evidence that clubs “hold it against” players (or vice versa) for these cases.
Harper: $13.625 million, apparently as part of a handshake agreement over the deal last season, well above what was expected. Guess he needed a little extra to cover the wedding. Is it too much to hope that it’s also a little grease to stay in the conversation for an extension?
Rendon: $5.8 million; Roark: $4.315 million; Norris: $4.2 million. Rendon’s is a little less than expected, but fair. Roark gets a big bump from just above the minimum but nevertheless is still a huge bargain. And Norris gets what the system says he should get, which is a joke considering how awful he was last year. I’m sorry, but if you post close to league-worst numbers, you should revert close to the minimum. But that’s not the way the system works.
So Todd, where do the Nats stand now in their overall salary number? How much do you think Rizzo still has left to spend?
KW
13 Jan 17 at 3:11 pm
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/nationals-journal/wp/2017/01/13/bryce-harper-settles-at-13-625-million/?utm_term=.a1ac5d5ba363
Boom: Harper for $13.625M, Rendon for $5.8M. Harper WAY above mlbtraderumors estimate. Rendon below even my estimate. Roark well below even my estimate at 4.315, while Norris slightly above MLBtraderumor’s estimate at 4.2.
All told, this puts the Nats aboutr $2M over MLBtraderumors projection for their arb cases, and i’ve now got their 2017 payroll at $141,582,929 (not their luxury tax number, which is significantly higher).
Todd Boss
13 Jan 17 at 3:12 pm
http://www.masnsports.com/nationals-pastime/2017/01/harper-roark-and-norris-sign-deals-still-waiting-for-rendon.html
I had to laugh at Zuckerman’s story here: he says “The Nationals have gone to only 12 arbitration hearings in 12 seasons.” That’s like 25% of all the cases in the majors during that time!! How can he use the word “only” there?
Todd Boss
13 Jan 17 at 3:19 pm
The Nats were at $145M last season and $162M in 2015, which by most accounts was higher than the Lerners wanted to be. So . . . . . . the guess would be that the number this year would be around $150M. If so, I don’t think that leaves enough to get both Drew and Holland. If either or both are still in play, all things considered, I’d rather have Drew.
And I still want them to trade Michael Taylor! If he’s on the bench, Dusty will play him, and possibly even bat him lead-off. He can’t help himself.
KW
13 Jan 17 at 3:44 pm
Hollands request right now is a joke; no surprise thr Nats aren’t biting. Anything less than a 2 year deal would be stupid for any club.
Drew wants to start and the only opening is the Dodgers and right now they don’t want him. The Nats are just waiting for him to relent.
Mark L
13 Jan 17 at 5:31 pm
Tyson Ross to the Rangers. At least the Cubs didn’t get him. The back end of the Cub rotation is still suspect. I had some faint hope that the Nats would get in on Ross, and $6M isn’t bad at all for him, much less than the $9-10M he was said to be seeking. I would much rather have paid $6M to Ross than to Holland.
Mark, I agree that Holland’s desire for a two-year contract AND an opt-out is nuts (heads I win/tails you lose). Boras is just seeing if anyone is crazy enough to bite, I guess. As for Drew, if any team was going to sign him to start, it should have happened by now. Yeah, maybe he’s holding out for the Dodgers, but Utley has always seemed like the fall-back option there. We’ll see.
I’m not in the tank for Drew. Of the INFs remaining, though, the only ones who can play SS and actually sorta hit are Drew and Aybar. I don’t see Difo as anything more than a AAA emergency reserve at this point. They have to improve on him.
There are still a lot of guys available, and it’s mid-January. The prices have to start dropping at some point, right? There are guys out there who could improve the Nat bench like Valbuena, Logan Morrison, or Moss, but only at the right price. One would think that Valbuena and Moss have been among those hoping to land a starting gig as well, in addition to a starter salary. Time to get realistic, guys.
KW
13 Jan 17 at 9:12 pm
Even with a questionable #5 starter right now I have the Cubs as the best rotation in the game. If the Mets quartet could guarantee some healthiness they’d be #1. Once all the moves shake out I’ll publish my personal rankings …
These player optoins are all the rage; indeed they’re 100% player friendly. I guess its just a balance versus the badly negotiated CBA.
Todd Boss
13 Jan 17 at 10:15 pm
Kw & Todd, I just think that contract the Rangers gave Ross is plain stupid. At best, he might be useful in August & Sept.
Kudos to Rizzo for saying no.
As for Holland, Boras is always looking for the fool. Bad for him the Angels are tapped out.
Valbueno would be great for the Nats if he wants to be a utility guy.
Lets stop badmouthing Michael Taylor, the potential for greatness is still there. Might be with another club, but there is still a chance.
Mark L
13 Jan 17 at 11:23 pm
Taylor strikes out at one of the worst rates in MLB. If there’s a story of a player at this stage of his career radically improving his K rate/plate discipline, I haven’t heard it. It’s just hard to anticipate much improvement after seven pro seasons. The same goes for Taylor’s terrible baserunning and low walk rate. He supposedly has power, but in more than a full season’s worth of MLB plate appearances, his HR rate is less than 20 a year. Yes, he’s fast and has power, but there’s little evidence that those “tools” have translated into a quality major-league baseball player.
Cub rotation: they have two established stars in Lester and Arrieta. The other guys just pitched out of their minds last year. Lackey will be hard-pressed to repeat what he did at age 38. I still have trouble believing that Hendricks is such a stud, but he may be. Giving Hendricks the benefit of the doubt, they’re still vulnerable at the back end with Lackey and Montgomery.
KW
14 Jan 17 at 8:30 am
OK, let’s try to get something going here in the midst of the painful lack of news. I’ve been negative about Holland in the earlier (and more expensive) signing period, but I wonder where his price is now. I also wonder whether he’s picked up a couple of MPH on his heater since his showcase. I wonder if scouts have been allowed another look. Anyway, if a quality starter like Ross with injury concerns got $6M (plus incentives), the price for a wounded reliever should be less than $6M, right?
If the price from Holland is getting down to around $5M, I’m starting to get interested. At that price, there also wouldn’t be the pressure to make him the closer right away, which I don’t think he could do anyway. With him, I think the best hope would be that he get healthier through the summer and is getting close to his old self by Aug.-Sept. I wasn’t going to pay 1/$10M for him, but I’d think about 1/$5M, or even 2/$10M. At that rate, they’d still have money for a bench bat or two.
However, would the money be better spent on a righty like Holland, or a lefty like Logan, who presumably is looking for just about as much? I don’t think the Nats can spend that much apiece on two relievers, so who would you rather have?
KW
16 Jan 17 at 7:56 am