What ever is wrong with Roy Halladay?

30 Comments

Roy Halladay gave up a homer to Alex Rodriguez in his first spring start, which is fine because that’s Alex Rodriguez, the active major league leader in home runs.

In his second spring start, Halladay gave up two homers to Eric Patterson, a journeyman most famous for being the younger brother of a former top prospect turned journeyman.

In his third spring start, Halladay gave up two more homers, these to a Twins team that wasn’t hitting anyone this spring. Granted, they did come off the bats of better hitters than Patterson: Josh Willingham hit the first, with prospect Chris Parmelee delivering the second.

Add it up and Halladay has allowed five homers in 7 2/3 innings this spring. That’s one more than he allowed in his final 19 starts of 2011 (and, by the way, nine of those 19 starts lasted longer than 7 2/3 innings).

So, what’s wrong with Roy Halladay? Probably nothing. Still, this isn’t like him in the least. Not typically a slow starter, he made it through last spring allowing a total of one run in 21 2/3 innings. He did give up five homers in his final spring with the Jays in 2009, but that was spread over 33 innings and he ended up with a 3.27 ERA.

The current reports suggest Halladay’s velocity is just fine. His location obviously isn’t, but he’ll have a couple of more starts with which to sort that out. If he’s still getting lit up at the end of the spring, there will be some reason for concern. Right now, there isn’t.

MLBPA thinks all 30 teams will take a “file-and-trial” approach to arbitration

Wikimedia Commons
Leave a comment

There’s something interesting deep in Ken Rosenthal’s latest notes column. It’s about arbitration, with Rosenthal reporting that the players union believes that all 30 teams will take a “file-and-trial” approach to arbitration this winter.

If you’re unfamiliar with this, it breaks down thusly:

  • In mid-January, teams and players who are eligible for arbitration will exchange proposed salary figures. The player says what he thinks he’s worth based on comparable players of his quality and service time and the team will propose a lower counter-figure;
  • Generally, the parties then use these proposals as negotiable figures and eventually reach a compromise deal, usually near the midpoint between the two figures, avoiding arbitration;
  • If a deal cannot be reached, they go to an arbitration hearing and arbitrators pick one of the numbers. They CANNOT give a compromise award. It’s either the higher player’s number or the lower team number.

In the past, a handful of teams — most typically the Blue Jays, Braves, Marlins, Rays, and White Sox — employed a “file- and-trial” approach, meaning that they treated the figure exchange date as a hard deadline after which they refused to negotiate and stood content to go to a hearing. As more teams have adopted this approach, there have been more arbitration hearings. As Rosenthal notes, last year there were more hearings than in any offseason for the past 25 years. Now, the union thinks, every team will do this. If they do, obviously, there will be even more hearings.

There is certainly an advantage to file-and-trial for a team. It makes the player and the agent work harder and earlier in order to be prepared to negotiate with the club before the file deadline. It also makes them work a lot harder to come up with a defensible filing number given that, rather than merely being an opening salvo in an extended negotiation, it’s something that they will certainly have to defend in open court. It’s also simple hardball. Teams have greater resources than the players and the agents and it’s less painful for them to pay for lawyers and hearing prep and to conduct the actual hearing. There’s risk to the team, of course — they might lose and pay more than a settlement would’ve cost — but teams are obviously concluding that the risk is worth it.

The only question I have is, if the union is right and all 30 teams will now proceed this way, how was that decided? Everyone suddenly, after several decades of arbitration, simply decided to take the same approach? Or was there, I dunno, a meeting in which the strategy was coordinated? Inquiring minds want to know!