Will Tigers Pony up for Skubal

[Shelton]

It’s a fine line between defending a move and supporting a move. But regardless, I think it’s important to be careful with hindsight, and it’s also important to avoid complaining about hypothetical deals that were not made. 
 

Anyway, I doubt there were May people that necessarily supported the move for Cobb, Paddack, or Morton. However, none of these moves cost them much of anything. In that regard, I think you can defend them. 
 

It’s easy to point to Cobb and the 15 million, but more than anything this illustrates to me that there isn’t a hard budget or cost cap imposed by ownership. The deadline trades further illustrate this, in view of all of the dead money taken on in these deals.

With specific reference to Cobb now, this was an early signing that was clearly made to bring in a guy to compete for a 5th SP spot and provide some bulk inning beyond that. Jack Flaherty was not yet signed and was unlikely to be signed. Had Jack been under contract, I doubt Cobb or another guy like him would have been signed. This was a minor deal and they didn’t allow it to stop them from adding Flaherty. This is the defense of this move, while not necessarily supporting it. 
 

Paddack and Morton are different. I think they were mostly interested in just making it to the end of the season and they needed innings. Neither were going to pitch in the playoffs. The cost was nothing. The alternatives would not have been better. There were better pitchers available of course, but without knowing what the demand was, it’s very difficult to say with any certainty whether another deal would have been preferable. That said, I do think they expected more from paddack. I don’t think they expected more than a #5 starter, but they probably hoped he would be able to stick in the rotation. Morton was simply added to eat up some innings. 
 

So, it’s fair to say the Paddack deal was a mistake. But I also think it is defensible.

[Sports_Freak]

1 hour ago, chasfh said:

I’m sorry, are you actually denying that there are people here who want to trade Skubal?? Please tell me I don’t have to provide proof of that!

Sure, trade him if he wont sign. But that in no way means we won't compete for "2 or 3 years."

[Sports_Freak]

1 hour ago, chasfh said:

Where did I defend Harris for signing (I assume you mean) Paddack and Morton? Do you have receipts on that?

Not even gonna bother. Harris does no wrong in your eyes. If Avila made the same moves, you would be fine with them. Right?

[Sports_Freak]

42 minutes ago, Shelton said:

It’s a fine line between defending a move and supporting a move. But regardless, I think it’s important to be careful with hindsight, and it’s also important to avoid complaining about hypothetical deals that were not made. 
 

Anyway, I doubt there were May people that necessarily supported the move for Cobb, Paddack, or Morton. However, none of these moves cost them much of anything. In that regard, I think you can defend them. 
 

It’s easy to point to Cobb and the 15 million, but more than anything this illustrates to me that there isn’t a hard budget or cost cap imposed by ownership. The deadline trades further illustrate this, in view of all of the dead money taken on in these deals.

With specific reference to Cobb now, this was an early signing that was clearly made to bring in a guy to compete for a 5th SP spot and provide some bulk inning beyond that. Jack Flaherty was not yet signed and was unlikely to be signed. Had Jack been under contract, I doubt Cobb or another guy like him would have been signed. This was a minor deal and they didn’t allow it to stop them from adding Flaherty. This is the defense of this move, while not necessarily supporting it. 
 

Paddack and Morton are different. I think they were mostly interested in just making it to the end of the season and they needed innings. Neither were going to pitch in the playoffs. The cost was nothing. The alternatives would not have been better. There were better pitchers available of course, but without knowing what the demand was, it’s very difficult to say with any certainty whether another deal would have been preferable. That said, I do think they expected more from paddack. I don’t think they expected more than a #5 starter, but they probably hoped he would be able to stick in the rotation. Morton was simply added to eat up some innings. 
 

So, it’s fair to say the Paddack deal was a mistake. But I also think it is defensible.

Hindsight...somebody claimed baseball executives had more knowledge about players than the average fan....or something along those lines. The average Tiger fan saw the stats and were not too happy with trading for those players. And it didnt cost us much? It cost us any possibility of hanging onto first place and possibly getting a bye. So yeah, Scott Harris made moves, not that improvesld our major league team, but actually hurt us.

[Tiger337]

Complaining about stuff is good for the forum.  I think once the season starts, it's best to accept the roster and enjoy the season.  Then start complaining again at the deadline!

[Shelton]

25 minutes ago, Sports_Freak said:

Hindsight...somebody claimed baseball executives had more knowledge about players than the average fan....or something along those lines. The average Tiger fan saw the stats and were not too happy with trading for those players. And it didnt cost us much? It cost us any possibility of hanging onto first place and possibly getting a bye. So yeah, Scott Harris made moves, not that improvesld our major league team, but actually hurt us.

Or, they had a highly improbably series of results occur, and Harris’s moves actually helped them avoid the missing the playoffs entirely. 
 

See, there are facts, and then there hypotheticals that cannot be proven. The facts are that Harris made certain moves, the tigers finished with a certain number wins, and they finished behind Cleveland and ahead of Houston. The effect of moves made and not made is impossible to say, by you, me, or anyone else. 
 

It’s also a fact that the front office has more information than fans. That’s not really up for debate. That doesn’t mean that the front office can predict the future. 
 

I recall quite a few folks not being happy with the acquisition of Paddack, but I can’t say I remember anyone saying it was going to cost them their division lead. 

[buddha]

i dont think we can say there were no better alternatives to paddack and morton.

1) it would hard to be worse; and 2) we dont know who else was ultimately available.

part of me misses dombrowski and his ability to find quality mlb players for prospects.  part of me also dreads the idea of dombrowski trading mcgonigle for a 37 year old closer with an 89 mph fastball because he has "experience" and knows how to "get the job done."

and lets be honest, dombrowski would never have drafted mcgonigle to begin with...

[Tiger337]

39 minutes ago, buddha said:

i dont think we can say there were no better alternatives to paddack and morton.

1) it would hard to be worse; and 2) we dont know who else was ultimately available.

part of me misses dombrowski and his ability to find quality mlb players for prospects.  part of me also dreads the idea of dombrowski trading mcgonigle for a 37 year old closer with an 89 mph fastball because he has "experience" and knows how to "get the job done."

and lets be honest, dombrowski would never have drafted mcgonigle to begin with...

Dombrowski would not have traded McGonigle for a 37 year-old closer.  He would have traded Max Anderson for him.  He would have traded McGonigle for a young star hitter close to free agency like he did for Cabrera.  I don't want that kind of GM.  I kind of want a GM with Harris's analytic and patient approach but with some of Dombrowski's boldness on occasion. Maybe, we'll see that eventually with Harris.   

[Sports_Freak]

47 minutes ago, buddha said:

i dont think we can say there were no better alternatives to paddack and morton.

1) it would hard to be worse; and 2) we dont know who else was ultimately available.

part of me misses dombrowski and his ability to find quality mlb players for prospects.  part of me also dreads the idea of dombrowski trading mcgonigle for a 37 year old closer with an 89 mph fastball because he has "experience" and knows how to "get the job done."

and lets be honest, dombrowski would never have drafted mcgonigle to begin with...

Maybe a Tigers team wouldn't be in a position to draft him? Didn't we lose almost 100 games to draft him and Max Clark? These guys are huge prospects that many baseball people rank very highly. Hopefully they both work out, unlike another high draft pick, Jace Jung...

[Tigermojo]

Petzold Source: Tarik Skubal filed at $32 million; the Tigers filed at $19 million.

[Motown Bombers]

That's less than what David Price got in arbitration 11 years ago. Skubal is good as gone if they are going to lowball like this in arbitration. 

[Tiger337]

No player has ever won an arbitation salary of more than 20 million.  However, based on performance  the 32 million dollar seems very reasonable to me.

I know the arbitation scolds will scold me for that.

Edited 12 hours ago by Tiger337

[gehringer_2]

34 minutes ago, Motown Bombers said:

That's less than what David Price got in arbitration 11 years ago. Skubal is good as gone if they are going to lowball like this in arbitration. 

gamesmanship.  I imagine the Tigers figure Slubal wins arbitration almost no matter what he submits, to the team is going to lowball just to encourage him not to get so greedy he could lose. 

[Edman85]

I guess this thread can be closed now, eh? Here comes the arbitration freak out I knew was coming as soon as I read Passan's article today.

[Hongbit]

I hope the Tigers present their arbitration case in limerick form just to mess with Boras  

[Sports_Freak]

They settled before the arbitration hearing?

[Sports_Freak]

12 minutes ago, Edman85 said:

I guess this thread can be closed now, eh? Here comes the arbitration freak out I knew was coming as soon as I read Passan's article today.

Not really. The Tigers still have 3 choices. Trade him, keep him thru 2026 and then let him walk, or extend him to a huge and long term contract. Skubal and Boras may make it 2 choices by not wanting an extension but I dont see that happening. Not if the Tigers meet his demands.

My choice would be to extend him. If it's for 10 years and north of $400 million? It's not my money...

[Tiger337]

23 minutes ago, Edman85 said:

I guess this thread can be closed now, eh? Here comes the arbitration freak out I knew was coming as soon as I read Passan's article today.

I didn't think the thread was about arbitration.  

[oblong]

Remember the freak out when Mize went thru this?

[Edman85]

Just now, Tiger337 said:

I didn't think the thread was about arbitration.  

I was kinda joking that they aren't ponying up for his final year of control, so the answer to the thread title is "no!"

I mean this doesn't guarantee that is the case next year, but it has seemed pretty clear the sides are far apart on the long term.

[Edman85]

CBA Dump...

 

Quote

E.  Salary Arbitration The following salary arbitration procedure shall be applicable:

(1) Eligibility.

(a) General Rule.  Any Player with a total of three or more years of Major League service, however accumulated, but with less than six years of Major League service, may submit the issue of the Player’s salary to final and binding arbitration without the consent of the Club, subject to the provisions of paragraph (3) below. Nothing contained herein shall limit the right of any Player, with the consent of the Club, to submit the issue of his salary to final and binding arbitration.

(b) “Super Two” Players.  In addition, a Player with at least two but less than three years of Major League service shall be eligible for salary arbitration if: (a) he has accumulated at least 86 days of service during the immediately preceding season; and (b) he ranks in the top 22% (rounded to the nearest whole number) in total service in the class of Players who have at least two but less than three years of Major League service, however accumulated, but with at least 86 days of service accumulated during the immediately preceding season. If two or more Players are tied at 22%, all such Players shall be eligible.

(2) Notice of Submission The Association and Major League Baseball Labor Relations Department (“LRD”) will confirm the list of arbitration eligible players promptly after the tender date. The Association and the LRD shall exchange salary figures on the Exchange Date, set forth in the schedule below:

Year Exchange Date

2023 Friday, January 13

2024 Friday, January 12

2025 Friday, January 10

2026 Friday, January 9

It shall be the responsibility of the Association prior to the Exchange Date to obtain the salary figure from the Player, and the LRD shall have a similar responsibility to obtain the Club’s figure.

(3) Withdrawal from Arbitration.  In the event the Club and Player reach agreement on salary before the arbitration panel reaches a decision, the matter shall be deemed withdrawn from arbitration; provided, however, that any agreements that have not been reported both to the Association and the LRD by 1 P.M. Eastern Time on the Exchange Date shall not be confirmed until after the Club and Player exchange numbers. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in Article IX, a tendered arbitration eligible Player (as defined in paragraph (1) above and confirmed by the Parties pursuant to paragraph (2) above) who reaches a confirmed agreement with his Club on salary for the following season prior to the matter being heard by the arbitration panel shall be eligible for in-season termination pay as set forth in Article IX(C) (i.e., in the full amount of the agreed upon paragraph 2 salary for the upcoming season) in the event the Player’s contract is terminated by his Club under paragraph 7(b)(2) of the Uniform Player’s Contract for failure to exhibit sufficient skill or competitive ability prior to Opening Day.

(4) Form of Submission.  The Player and the Club shall exchange with each other in advance of the hearing single salary figures for the coming season (which need not be figures offered during the prior negotiations) and then shall submit such figures to the arbitration panel. At the hearing, the Player and Club shall deliver to the arbitration panel an executed Uniform Player’s Contract, complete except for the salary figure to be inserted in paragraph 2. Upon submission of the salary issue to arbitration by either Player or Club, the Player shall be regarded as a signed Player (unless the Player withdraws from arbitration as provided in paragraph (3) above).

(5) Selection of Arbitrators.  The Association and the LRD shall annually select the arbitrators. In the event they are unable to agree by January 1 in any year, they jointly shall request that the American Arbitration Association furnish them lists of prominent, professional arbitrators. Upon receipt of such lists, the arbitrators shall be selected by alternately striking names from the lists. All cases shall be assigned to three-arbitrator panels. The Association and the LRD shall designate one arbitrator to serve as the panel chair.

(6) Location of Hearings.  The single hearing site for each year will be agreed upon by the Parties with preference being given to either Tampa/St. Petersburg or Phoenix.

(7) Conduct of Hearings.  The hearings shall be conducted on a private and confidential basis. Each of the parties to a case shall be limited to one hour for initial presentation and one-half hour for rebuttal and summation. Cross-examination of witnesses shall not count against the aforesaid time limitations, and such time limitations may be extended by the arbitration panel for good cause. The Parties shall exchange all written materials to be utilized in their respective initial presentations at the outset of a hearing. The order of presentation shall be as follows:

(a) Player’s initial presentation;

(b) Club’s initial presentation;

(c) Player’s rebuttal and summation;

(d) Club’s rebuttal and summation;

(e) Player’s surrebuttal, which shall be very brief and offered to respond to new issues raised during the Club’s rebuttal; and

(f) If requested by the Club, the Panel may, at its discretion, allow the Club very brief surrebuttal to respond to new issues raised by the Player.

Notwithstanding this order of presentation, neither party shall carry the burden of proof.

(8) Continuances, Adjournments or Postponements.  There shall be no continuances or adjournments of a hearing, but the commencement of a hearing may be postponed by the arbitration panel upon the application of either the Player or Club based upon a showing of substantial cause. Any request for the postponement of a scheduled hearing shall be made to the panel chair in writing, with copies to the Association and the LRD. Disclosure of individual votes by panel members shall be in accordance with paragraph (13) below.

(9) Hearing Costs.  The Player and Club shall divide equally the costs of the hearing, and each shall be responsible for his own expenses and those of his counsel or other representatives.

(10) Criteria

(a) The criteria will be the quality of the Player’s contribution to his Club during the past season (including but not limited to his overall performance, special qualities of leadership and public appeal), the length and consistency of his career contribution, the record of the Player’s past compensation, comparative baseball salaries (see paragraph (11) below for confidential salary data), the existence of any physical or mental defects on the part of the Player, and the recent performance record of the Club including but not limited to its League standing and attendance as an indication of public acceptance (subject to the exclusion stated in subparagraph (b)(i) below). Except as set forth in subsections 10(b) and 10(c) below, any evidence may be submitted which is relevant to the above criteria, and the arbitration panel shall assign such weight to the evidence as shall appear appropriate under the circumstances. The arbitration panel shall, except for a Player with five or more years of Major League service, give particular attention, for comparative salary purposes, to the contracts of Players with Major League service not exceeding one annual service group above the Player’s annual service group. This shall not limit the ability of a Player or his representative, because of special accomplishment, to argue the equal relevance of salaries of Players without regard to service, and the arbitration panel shall give whatever weight to such argument as is deemed appropriate.

(b) Evidence of the following shall not be admissible:

(i) The financial position of the Player and the Club;

(ii) Press comments, testimonials or similar material bearing on the performance of either the Player or the Club, except that recognized annual Player awards for playing excellence shall not be excluded;

(iii) Offers made by either Player or Club prior to arbitration;

(iv) The cost to the Parties of their representatives, attorneys, etc.;

(v) Salaries in other sports or occupations;

(vi) The existence of the Pre-Arbitration Performance Bonus Program described in Article XV(D), including the criteria and any amounts earned pursuant to the Program;

(vii) The potential impact of the hearing on the Player’s eligibility for termination pay under paragraph (3) above.

(c) Admissible Statistics.  Only publicly available statistics shall be admissible. For purposes of this provision, publicly available statistics shall include data available through subscription-only websites (e.g., Baseball Prospectus). Statistics and data generated through the use of performance technology, wearable technology, or “STATCAST”, whether publicly available or not, shall not be admissible.

(11) Confidential Major League Salary Data.  For its confidential use, as background information, the arbitration panel will be given a tabulation showing the minimum salary in the Major Leagues and salaries for the preceding season of all players on Major League rosters as of August 31, broken down by years of Major League service. The names and Clubs of the Players concerned will appear on the tabulation. In utilizing the salary tabulation, the arbitration panel shall consider the salaries of all comparable Players and not merely the salary of a single Player or group of Players.

(12) Prohibition Regarding Competitive Balance Tax.  No participant in a salary arbitration shall refer in any fashion, either orally or in writing, to any of the provisions in Article XXIII (Competitive Balance Tax). No salary arbitration panel shall consider in any fashion any of the provisions in Article XXIII (Competitive Balance Tax).

(13) Timetable and Decision. Within five days after the Exchange Date, the Association and LRD will meet to schedule the arbitration hearings for dates between January 26 to February 20, absent a contrary agreement of the Parties. The arbitration panel may render the decision on the day of the hearing, and shall make every effort to do so not later than 24 hours following the close of the hearing. The arbitration panel shall be limited to awarding only one or the other of the two figures submitted. There shall be no opinion. There shall be no release of the arbitration award by the arbitration panel except to the Club, the Player, the Association and the LRD. The panel chair shall initially inform the Association and the LRD of the award only and not how the panel members voted. The panel chair shall disclose to the Association and the LRD the individual votes of the panel members on each March 15 following the February hearings. The panel chair shall insert the figure awarded in paragraph 2 of the executed Uniform Player’s Contract delivered at the hearing and shall forward the Contract to the Office of the Commissioner.

 

[oblong]

I don’t understand the freak out on the Tigers number.   This isn’t a negotiation. It’s for a hearing.  They pick one value. Why would the tigers pay more than they have to? 

[Nate7474]

Highest pitcher arb ever was Price at 19.75. I don’t think the a tigers are wrong here. It’ll get worked out. 

[gehringer_2]

3 minutes ago, Nate7474 said:

Highest pitcher arb ever was Price at 19.75. I don’t think the a tigers are wrong here. It’ll get worked out. 

Skubal is better now than Price was then and there has been about 25% inflation since 2015,  so Price's award was closer to $25M in today's dollars. 

[Edman85]

14 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said:

Skubal is better now than Price was then and there has been about 25% inflation since 2015,  so Price's award was closer to $25M in today's dollars. 

But the arbitrator can only choose one of the two numbers, so if the team knew Boras was asking for 30+  why not go low and try?