Dodgers could deal some starting pitching

2 Comments

A group of geese is called a gaggle. A group of lions is called a pride. What do you call the Dodgers’ collection of starting pitching?

With a rotation that already includes aces Clayton Kershaw and Zack Greinke, as well as Hyun-Jin Ryu, Chad Billingsley, and Josh Beckett, the Dodgers are in a position to deal at least one of Ted Lilly, Chris Capuano, and Aaron Harang. The Boston Globe’s Nick Cafardo reports that Lilly is the most likely to be dealt:

Ted Lilly, LHP, Dodgers — Growing interest in the lefty, who missed most of last season after May, as he makes his way back from shoulder surgery. There seems to be more interest in the 37-year-old Lilly than in Aaron Harang or Chris Capuano, two extra Dodgers starters who also could be dealt. The Dodgers are holding on to all of them until they are assured that Chad Billingsley is 100 percent ready after undergoing treatments to his elbow this offseason that enabled him to bypass Tommy John surgery.

Lilly posted a 3.14 ERA in the eight starts he made early in 2012 before going on the disabled list. Capuano bounced back after a rough 2011 with the Mets, finishing with a 3.72 ERA in 198.1 innings. Harang had his second consecutive solid season, ending 2012 with a 3.61 ERA in 179.2 innings. Any of the three would be an upgrade at the back of most starting rotations, but teams likely won’t start calling the Dodgers until the regular season nears. The Dodgers’ leverage in negotiations will be weaker, meaning that they would have to eat more of the pitchers’ salaries.

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!