Wednesday, December 03, 2008

Dec. 3 -- ARBITRATION EXPLANATION

BY SCOTT LAUBER

Talked to Ruben Amaro Jr. for a few minutes last night, and while you can read the full story in today's News Journal, I'd like to pass along some highlights of our conversation.

Among other things, I asked him to explain why the Phillies didn't offer salary arbitration to Jamie Moyer and Pat Burrell. And, as we hypothesized in this space late Monday night, it had to do with payroll flexibility and making sure the Phillies have enough cash in reserve to deal with their 10 arbitration-eligible players in 2009 and perhaps even dole out a few long-term contracts along the way.

"It's cost control but also it's flexibility as far as the timing is concerned," Amaro said. "If they happened to accept [arbitration], we would have to wait until February for an arbitrator to decide what kind of money they'd get. Having those dollars tied up would preclude us from doing what we need to do to improve the club in other areas. This allows us to continue to engage both players in negotiations without any restriction, and the way the rules are now, we can continue to negotiate with both players. We're continuing to negotiate with Jamie. We haven't had as many discussions with Burrell, but that doesn't mean we won't. But now, we can do it without the caveat that an arbitrator will put a dollar amount on these guys for us."

***
Just because reliever Juan Cruz, outfielder Raul Ibanez and a few other Type A free agents that have drawn the Phillies' interest were offered arbitration, don't think the Phils will shy away from signing them, even though doing so would cost them their 2009 first-round draft pick.

"If we think the right thing to do is to sign someone or try to sign someone who we might have to lose a draft pick for, we have to do what's right," Amaro said.

***
Pitching remains Amaro's top priority, and within that realm, re-signing Moyer is still atop his to-do list. Amaro declined to characterize the negotiations by saying whether he's more or less optimistic that a deal will get done than he was two weeks ago. The sides are at odds, apparently, over the length of the contract. At 46, Moyer is the oldest player in the majors. So, although he led the Phils with 16 wins last season, I think they're worried about committing more than one year. Moyer wants to pitch for more than one more year, and he'd rather not have to go through the free-agent process again. Could the sides agree on an incentive-laden, one-year contract with an option for 2010? Time will tell.

"We're hopeful that we'll bring [Moyer] back," Amaro said. "If we cannot, then we'll have to go down a different road. It's part of the process. Jamie and his agent see him at a certain value, and we see Jamie at a certain value. It's trying to get them together."

I know the Phillies have kicked the tires on A.J. Burnett and/or Derek Lowe as possible Moyer replacements, but I don't think either of those pitchers will be in their price range. If the Phils lose Moyer, I think it's more realistic that they replace him with a lower-tier pitcher, someone like Jon Garland.

***
If Burrell bolts (the well-sourced John Perrotto of Baseball Prospectus has floated a rumor that the Angels may want him as a first-base replacement for Mark Teixeira), the Phillies will need reinforcements in the outfield. Amaro said they'd prefer to add a right-handed hitter, unless they can find a lefty-hitting outfielder capable of playing every day (among free agents, only Ibanez and switch-hitting Milton Bradley fit that description). Two right-handed hitters to continue keeping an eye on: Rocco Baldelli and Juan Rivera. Neither was offered arbitration, and both could conceivably form one-half of a platoon with lefty-swinging Greg Dobbs, Matt Stairs or Geoff Jenkins.

2 comments:

Zach said...

Interesting. So Amaro is silently saying that he feels there was a greater chance than not that both Moyer and Burrell would end up accepting arbitration if offered?

Either way, the Phillies 09 draft is going to be rough.

Anonymous said...

Does payroll flexibility mean gold standard?