Web Search powered by YAHOO! SEARCH
12.01.2008 1:10 pm

The Arbitration Gambit & Felipe Lopez

St. Louis Post-Dispatch
  • Email this
  • Print this

TOWER GROVE — This evening at the stroke of midnight on the East Coast the prices for many of the best free agents in baseball will be set by teams deciding whether or not to offer arbitration. Some players are sure to be offered arbitration because of the bounty of draft picks their signings will bring (A.J. Burnett and CC Sabathia, for example). Others certainly won’t be, like shortstop Edgar Renteria (the Detroit Tigers made it official moments ago, per Detroit Free Press).

And then there are the quandaries.

To cash-in on the draft-pick compensation from a free agent a team must offer the player arbitration by 11:01 p.m. St. Louis time today. The St. Louis Cardinals have one Type A and two Type B free agents who, if they sign elsewhere, will score the Cardinals some draft picks. They are: RHP Russ Springer (A), RHP Jason Isringhausen (B) and RHP Braden Looper (B). While Springer would net the Cardinals two draft picks if signing elsewhere after an arbitration offer, the most intriguing of the trio is Looper.

RHP Braden Looper, a Type B free agent.

RHP Braden Looper, a Type B free agent.

Looper is coming off a season in which he pitched 199 innings and cemented his career renaissance as a starter. He also made $5.5 million. If the Cardinals offer Looper arbitration to get the sandwich pick if he signs elsewhere, it would be a calculated risk leveraged against how much Looper could win in arbitration. Looper would have until Sunday to turn down arbitration, and he would do so thinking he could get a multi-year deal elsewhere. What happens if he accepts the offer? The Cardinals would have Looper locked in for a contract in 2009 and his salary would be decided in arbitration.

Even then, there’s a good possibility he would still have a payroll-friendly salary, esp. for a starter.

Arbitration forces both sides of free agency to take a gamble. The team, while out to secure bonus draft picks, is guaranteeing a contract and betting on the player making an agreeable salary via arbitration. The player is banking on his ability to get better term or better money elsewhere. Those are the fundamentals of the arbitration gambit.

But the Looper scenario hints at a benefit of arbitration the Cardinals could apply elsewhere.

It is highly unusual for teams to offer arbitration to players who aren’t Type A or Type B free agents — and therefore don’t carry the benefit of draft-pick compensation. But say a team has a hole in its lineup and isn’t eager to sign a multi-year deal with a player to fill it. Arbitration offers a way.

Consider Felipe Lopez — for the sake of discussion only because such a scenario described below is unlikely to ever happen. Yet, it’s worth exploring why.

INF Felipe Lopez

INF Felipe Lopez: Worth the cost?

The Cardinals have expressed interest in having Lopez return after his successful turn as a utility player for the team late last season. There could even be a starting job at second base for Lopez. But the Cardinals have been cool toward Lopez’s perceived asking price of a multi-year deal. There are no draft picks to gain by offering him arbitration, but there is an element of strategy. Lopez made $4.9 million from Washington last year and had a rather ordinary season. His .385/.426/.538 surge in 43 games with the Cardinals sweetened his overall averages to .283/.343/.387 in 532 plate appearances. He’d be considered a regular. His ability to play multiple positions is valuable. But how much more could he really command via arbitration — $2.5 million more? $3 million more?

At what salary does having Lopez as an everyday starter become unappealing? What is the flexibility of a one-year contract worth to the Cardinals? The cost is a tangible gamble. Those are the salient questions.

By offering Lopez arbitration the Cardinals are putting a signed contract on the table. If Lopez accepts, he’s set for 2009. Done deal. The two sides would then have until the arbitration hearing to negotiate the terms of that deal. Or, they could allow arbitration to set his salary on the guaranteed one-year deal.

The same situation is there for shortstop Cesar Izturis, who made a base salary of $2.85 million last season. He too offers no draft-pick encouragement for arbitration. He too could find himself in a depressed market, and that is part of the reason why the Cardinals — or any other team — would be unlikely to use the arbitration tool with players like Lopez and Izturis. There are many reasons for this: The salary of that player would be in limbo until January, possibly handcuffing a team’s budget as it pursues other players. The maximum salary-cut rule could not apply. There have been so few cases that the standard criteria for arbitration would be applied is unclear and, because of that, the salary, at best, is difficult to estimate and, at worst, could spike.

The threat of arbitration setting a higher salary than the open market is real and likely. But so too is the competition with other teams leading to an increased length of contract.

The prevailing argument will be that offering arbitration to such players is redundant, that it only serves to add a layer to already ongoing negotiations. If the Cardinals want Lopez for one year, why not just offer a one-year deal? The difference is the guaranteed term and the salary. The team offering such players arbitration is really offering security at the risk of the price. By offering Lopez arbitration, the Cardinals have the right to force the issue. They make him decide between a certain, one-year offer — salary TBD — and the open market. Arbitration can be a hammer, albeit a costly hammer.

If they want him back … If they want him for one year …

The heavy price of admission is having arbitration set his salary.

No matter what the scenario, be it Looper or the unlikely one described here with Lopez, arbitration does what it’s supposed to — spur negotiation.

-30-

16 comments

Comments are closed.

Gould- will you put a call in to the folks at 700 Clark and see if they offered arbitration to Springer? I’m sure they’ll have decided by dinner time, so you might as well call them and then post the info here. Thanks.

— Don
3:25 pm December 1st, 2008

Derrick:

What are the rules that determine whether a FA is Type A, B, or neither? I have always wondered, but was afraid to ask.

— AHB
3:37 pm December 1st, 2008

AHB,

That is a fine question, because all of this stuff can be confusing. Type A and Type B free agents are determined by the Elias Sports Bureau each season. How the statistics leader does that is best explained by SI.com’s Jon Heyman:

The rankings are based on statistical data from the Elias Sports Bureau. Stars ranked in the top 20 percent are considered Type A free agents, while those players in the next 20 percent are considered Type B free agents. Players who are neither consider A or B players are considered unclassified and don’t affect draft choices. The rankings are grouped by positions and based on statistics from the previous two seasons.

Type A free agents who sign elsewhere give the former team two draft picks — in the first round, after pick 16 this season, and in the sandwich round. Type B free agents who sign elsewhere give the former team one pick, in the supplemental (sandwich) round.

Hope that helps.

Usually I’m not a stickler because I forgive my ancestors for their sense of humor. But, while we’re making demands, Don, there are two O’s in Goold. No word yet. It’s entirely possible that no decision has been made now — or by your dinner time — because negotiations are ongoing. Yes, the arbitration deadline does inspire that sort of thing.

dg
-30-

— Derrick Goold
3:47 pm December 1st, 2008

There comes a time when you just have to trust your team. They operate with all the information, we operate with just what is made public. The rest is just trying to read minds. Sure is fun, though. Seems to me that offering arbitration to Springer is a no brainer. Great at what he does and worth the money. And at his age, one year, maybe with an option, is about all he can expect. Ditto for Looper. He showed great improvement as a starter and I would rank him above many free agents who have a history of injury. As you say, arbitration could be used as a springboard to negotiate a longer term deal. Looper is a keeper. Derrick, who do you see the team picking up in the rule five draft, if any? Thanks.

— roger from tahoe
4:55 pm December 1st, 2008

RfromT,

Have to disagree. Springer isn’t the “no brainer” his performance this past season would imply. If the Cardinals offer arb, there’s a good chance he’ll take it, and his salary will climb. For a team that has depth on that side of the bullpen, it may not be worth the gamble (picks vs. pay) to offer him arbitration. That doesn’t preclude Springer from re-signing with the Cardinals, it just makes him more attractive to the other teams that have come calling.

Though the comp pick isn’t the same, Looper is the more difficult call.

dg
-30-

— Derrick Goold
5:02 pm December 1st, 2008

My bad on the spelling DG, never got high marks in that subject.

Well, my dinner is over (bbq sandwich). Is there any update on the Spring man?

After thinking about it, I think it’s best to let Springer go without offering arbitration. He’s getting old and they already have Perez, Motte, Franklin, McClellan, Kinney, Thompson, and Worrell. The need to add 2 lefties and maybe a cheap 9th inning guy (Hoffman?). If Springer took Arb, then they couldn’t afford it if they have to pay Springer ~4MM.

Looper on the other hand would be a great fit on a one year ~7MM deal.

— Don
6:21 pm December 1st, 2008

Mathew Leach is reporting that the Cards didn’t offer arbitration to any one.

— CardsfanInIL
6:30 pm December 1st, 2008

Derrick-
Since the tigers didnt offer Renteria arb are the cardinals going to go after him now.

— Matt Rogers
7:11 pm December 1st, 2008

The fact that they didn’t offer arbitration to Looper is really very shcoking.

I thought that Looper would have been a “no brainer”. You know you can count on him for 180 innings a season. Looking back on the past couple of years, those innings that he ate up were really valuable.

The decision with Springer, on the other hand, makes sense. The bullpen is filled with talented RH arms.

— emc2013
7:11 pm December 1st, 2008

I like Looper and if this is true than the cards may come to regret this decision.

— TheBirds
7:39 pm December 1st, 2008

Reading the updates on Springer and the articles on people we are pursuing I can’t help but to ask the following. Why is there an insistance on saying the club is loaded with lefty bats and we need to keep Luddie? I mean I hope we do because he seems like a class act and you can’t put a statistic on that, but where is all this lefty power that I keep hearing about? Duncan? Ankiel? Maybe on paper we look deep, but how about at the end of this season? How deep were we when we were playing Lopez in the OF? I understand that we have had our troubles against lefty starters, but that was as much from our right handed batters as our left. They underperformed on lefty splits to my thinking. And how many innings will we see from lefty pitching vs righties in a season?
Sorry for the ADHD subject change DG, because I loved this article and I learned something new about the Byzantine rules of free agency. But I also skimmed through what some of the PD writers had on today’s links and I figured I must have missed a lot of home runs from lefties this year.

— Joepa
7:53 pm December 1st, 2008

I hope they offer Looper. He wants to be here, he’s reliable & he should only require a resonable amount. If he chooses not to accept, the picks would be great!

— Chris Hosto
8:00 pm December 1st, 2008

Who say that the Cardinals will not resign Looper, Springer and some of the other free agents. Springer and Looper both want to come back to St. Louis and St. Louis want both. What arbitation only means is that STL has a contract down, but if he sign elsewhere, STL get draft picks. As far as I know, the free agent rules change and Springer and Looper can sign up anytime with STL unlike last year where there was a timeline.

— Paul
6:49 am December 2nd, 2008

The Cardinals have to worry about cost with buys like Springer and Lopez. Look what the Nationals paid Lopez last year. They didn’t think he was worth it and let him go. The Cardinals would like to have him back, but at a reduced price. Same with Springer. He was good at times, but not great at other times. Age is catching up with him as well. Looper would end up costing the Cards way too much. He’s no better than Suppan. Lots of guys out there for the Cardinals to look over.

— Dave
8:37 am December 2nd, 2008

I think there are economic forces at work here that we’re only seeing the tip of so far - that is, the very real possibility that the bottom of the salary market is about to fall out for mid- and lower-level FA’s like Springer and Looper.

With all the talk about the tight economy, a lot of teams are simply not going to pay 4/40 for those kind of guys any more; they’ll ante up for the stars but the regular guys are going to be in for a rude awakening.

Thus, it’s entirely possible that while Looper might have, two or three years ago, been in line for a 3/27 or even a 4/40 deal, that he might not get any multi-year offers at all, or if he does, for not much more than the 3/13.5 deal he’s just coming off of.

And that means it’s entirely possible that the Cards might be able to bring him back for the same, give or take, as the $5.5 million he made in 2008.

I think they were definitely afraid that if they offered arbitration, that Looper’s agents (Hendricks Sports) might well have accepted - knowing that Braden could get as much as $10 million in arbitration. The Hendricks people are no dummies, and they might realize that a guy like Looper - decent pitcher though he is - isn’t going to make Suppan-esque money, not in this winter’s market.

— Jmodene
6:40 pm December 2nd, 2008

DG: Who’s an “arby comparable” to Looper from last year? Would you guess somewhere in the neighborhood of $10 million if it was offered and accepted by Braden?

Thanks,

Allen

— Allen
8:48 am December 3rd, 2008