Author Topic: Nats and Taylor went to arbitration over $3.25 vs $3.5 mill, really? REALLY?  (Read 1106 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Smithian

  • Posts: 9186
  • Team America 2018
If the Nationals set a number they wouldn't go above and he demanded 7.5% more, what are they supposed to do? We do not know if he already negotiated them up from a lower number.

Offline Nick the Pig

  • Posts: 702
Taylor is marginal in this outfield, but there are probably 5-10 or so teams where he would start.

And given that fact, I'm not sure why the Nats would think it's worth antagonizing him over a measly $250k.

Online Slateman

  • Posts: 48305
If the Nationals set a number they wouldn't go above and he demanded 7.5% more, what are they supposed to do? We do not know if he already negotiated them up from a lower number.
I think you're right

Offline Natsinpwc

  • Posts: 14107
Taylor is a marginal player who might not even be in the majors in 2020.  Nola is a genuine Star, a big shot who is
discussed as being one of the best in the game.

See the difference ?
Uh yea. That’s why you don’t want to piss off Nola. Who cares about Taylor being upset.

Offline Nick the Pig

  • Posts: 702
Uh yea. That’s why you don’t want to piss off Nola. Who cares about Taylor being upset.

The Nats, when he gets a start or gets put out there as a defensive replacement and has in his young mind that his team thinks that he's a hack.

Offline Natsinpwc

  • Posts: 14107
The Nats, when he gets a start or gets put out there as a defensive replacement and has in his young mind that his team thinks that he's a hack.
But Nola will be pleased if he loses his arbitration?  If Taylor slips anymore over 250K he will never be a regular big leaguer.

Nats threw in an extra million to Rendon. Need to find it somewhere. 750k to go. 

Offline DPMOmaha

  • Posts: 22270
And given that fact, I'm not sure why the Nats would think it's worth antagonizing him over a measly $250k.
You ever negotiate for anything? A car? A house?

Online Slateman

  • Posts: 48305
You ever negotiate for anything? A car? A house?
I don't think you have a working relationship with a car or a house.

Online nfotiu

  • Posts: 2563
  • Juan Soto aka Human Wildcat
Does that amount only apply to this year's salary?   Does it carry over some way to affect the next year's salary or trigger any other CBA considerations?


Offline aspenbubba

  • Posts: 4290
I don't believe anyone has stated that it was to send a message to others in the organization now and in the future in case any player or agent forgot the Blevins saga.

Online dracnal

  • Posts: 1256
Does that amount only apply to this year's salary?   Does it carry over some way to affect the next year's salary or trigger any other CBA considerations?

I think there's some rules about how much of a pay cut you can give a player you had under contract, year to year. But it's early and I haven't had coffee so I could be wrong. Think you can only get the really big pay cuts in free agency, though.

Offline DPMOmaha

  • Posts: 22270
I don't think you have a working relationship with a car or a house.
I have both, thanks for asking.

Online UMDNats

  • Posts: 15638
I have both, thanks for asking.

i think he meant you don't need to have a working relationship after the negotiation with a car or a house.

i.e., with taylor, it's not the same as negotiating a purchase because you're directly working with the player for the next year

Online Elvir Ovcina

  • Posts: 2748
i think he meant you don't need to have a working relationship after the negotiation with a car or a house.

i.e., with taylor, it's not the same as negotiating a purchase because you're directly working with the player for the next year

I don't know, my car being pissed off because I got a sweet deal for it might explain some of the vengeful gremlins it's had.

Offline DPMOmaha

  • Posts: 22270
i think he meant you don't need to have a working relationship after the negotiation with a car or a house.

i.e., with taylor, it's not the same as negotiating a purchase because you're directly working with the player for the next year
Ah, if that's the case, then yeah, I misread that...sorry, Slate.

Online Slateman

  • Posts: 48305
Ah, if that's the case, then yeah, I misread that...sorry, Slate.

I think your apology is genuine and I think I accept it.

Online HalfSmokes

  • Posts: 19997
i think he meant you don't need to have a working relationship after the negotiation with a car or a house.

i.e., with taylor, it's not the same as negotiating a purchase because you're directly working with the player for the next year

To be fair Taylor is so marginal that he has to go all out in order to stay on a roster. With a better player, they can say freak you, get a muscle strain or something else impossible to verify and take a vacation during a pennant race

Offline Duke of Earl

  • Posts: 216
I don't believe anyone has stated that it was to send a message to others in the organization now and in the future in case any player or agent forgot the Blevins saga.
Blevins won arbitration.  I think that's a significant difference. Rizzo hates you if you win arbitration.  If you lose, I don't know if he feels quite as bitter.

Offline imref

  • Posts: 28477
  • 1B: The New Hot Corner
Nats win against Barraclough, he gets $1.725 million instead of $2 million

Offline shoeshineboy

  • Posts: 7902
  • Walks Kill!! Walks Kill! Walks Kill!!!!
If the Nationals set a number they wouldn't go above and he demanded 7.5% more, what are they supposed to do? We do not know if he already negotiated them up from a lower number.

Agreed. Also, the 7% variance may be 250k in one case, but everything is relative. If you increase that percentage for one player, you end up doing that across the board and it adds up fast, especially at higher salary ranges. Even on the low end, going outside the projected salary ranges by that percentage is bad salary management and can end up adding up to an amount that makes the difference in signing the appropriate bench player or reliever. I want the Lerners to spend money, but I don't expect them to overpay for marginal players.

Offline bluestreak

  • Posts: 7175
Funny there are so many people siding with the Billionaires pinching pennies...

Online JCA-CrystalCity

  • Global Moderator
  • ****
  • Posts: 26448
  • Platoon - not just a movie, a baseball obsession
Funny there are so many people siding with the Billionaires pinching pennies...
I'll say billionaires aren't automatically evil, but hey, I'm not running for office.

Offline bluestreak

  • Posts: 7175
I'll say billionaires aren't automatically evil, but hey, I'm not running for office.

I don’t disagree, but for all practical purposes, the Lerner’s have unlimited money. Despite this they still took public money. And there are mulitiple threads here with people trying to figure out how to save them relatively small amounts of salary at the expense of players. I don’t think that anyone with the Nats could tell you with a straight face that giving Taylor or Barraclough an extra $250K would mean they couldn’t afford to sign some player. It’s patently absurd.

Offline varoadking

  • Posts: 25072
  • King of Goodness
I don’t disagree, but for all practical purposes, the Lerner’s have unlimited money. Despite this they still took public money. And there are mulitiple threads here with people trying to figure out how to save them relatively small amounts of salary at the expense of players. I don’t think that anyone with the Nats could tell you with a straight face that giving Taylor or Barraclough an extra $250K would mean they couldn’t afford to sign some player. It’s patently absurd.

...at the expense of players who are earning in one season more than many if not most households in this country will earn in their lifetimes...people that can't even afford to attend a single game? 

They should just give them another $250K simply because they asked for it?

That would seem patently absurd to me...

Offline bluestreak

  • Posts: 7175
...at the expense of players who are earning in one season more than many if not most households in this country will earn in their lifetimes...people that can't even afford to attend a single game? 

They should just give them another $250K simply because they asked for it?

That would seem patently absurd to me...

I mean, if I am going to side with billionaires who fleece the public or millionaires who are actually extremely talented at baseball, I don’t think it’s a difficult decision.
Especially when you consider that these guys are way underpaid for the beginning of their career. You don’t think 2017 MAT produced more that $550,000 of value? I imagine he or Barraclough doesn’t see it as the team just giving them money.

There’s billions in baseball. If these owners were funding the whole thing themselves, then I’d say fine, run this how you want, you’re taking the risk, you deserve most of the money.  But baseball is a zero risk enterprise. The guys creating the value are the players.