Club renewals of pre-arbitration players feel wrong. But what’s the alternative?


In the past week or two we’ve seen a handful of instances in which clubs renewing the contracts of pre-arbitration players created some controversy. Gerrit Cole was notably upset that the Pirates only gave him a tiny raise and, at some point, allegedly threatened to reduce his salary. Jacob deGrom, out of protest, refused to sign his renewed deal with the Mets. Yesterday we learned that Brad Boxberger, Jake Odorizzi, and Kevin Kiermaier of the Rays likewise refused to sign their renewals.

These protests are symbolic, of course. Since the club has the power to dictate the salary of players not yet arbitration-eligible, the players’ signatures are superfluous. Cole, deGrom, Boxberger, Odorizzi and Keirmaier aren’t able to make the clubs change their minds simply by refusing to sign. That’s part of the deal of having such little service time.

The dynamic is still an interesting one, however. It’s understandable that players the caliber of Cole, deGrom and Keirmaier are upset that they’re making so little and that their raises are so small, but what number wouldn’t upset them? I don’t ask that rhetorically, in a “Pfft! They’ll NEVER be happy!” kind of way. I’m legitimately asking: if a $50,000 raise like deGrom received is an insult, what number wouldn’t be an insult? And if it’s a sliding scale, what should we take away from these disputes as observers?

I’m thinking here of Mookie Betts. The Red Sox gave him a raise. He said he was pleased with it and many in the media pointed to his bump as a better way for a club to handle the issue than the way the Pirates handled Cole’s raise. That it was better for creating goodwill. Betts’ raise: $52,000, or basically what deGrom got. It’s better than what the Pirates and Rays did but it’s the same as the Mets approach which still drew a protest from the player. It makes one think that it’s only a “better” strategy for the Red Sox to pursue in hindsight. Betts didn’t take issue, therefore the goodwill was created.

Which has to frustrate clubs to some degree. Indeed, I spoke with a club official this afternoon who expressed a similar uncertainty to that which I’m feeling about it all. What number do you write down for a player that won’t insult him? The club official noted that you could give some of these guys — like deGrom — a $5 million raise and he’d still be underpaid compared to most players who produce like he does, so what’s the number you do give him that won’t insult him? And, more to the point, what is the number you give him that still allows you to pay the veterans you need to fill out your roster? After all: low money for low-service time players is not just a thing because clubs are cheap. It’s also a dynamic that clubs count on for purposes of roster construction and setting payrolls.

It’s a fascinating dilemma. It feels wrong on some very basic level that some legitimately great players are underpaid. But what’s the alternative? At least within the realistic confines of the current CBA and the fact that teams simply aren’t going to pay rookies $10 million or whatever they’re truly worth. Especially at a time in the game’s history where younger and younger players are playing larger and larger roles in team success than they used to. Now that I think harder about it, I can’t help but feel that, however wrong this friction between quality of player and salary feels, it’s unsolvable in the current environment. There’s an element of subjectivity to it that defies an easy answer.

A little more cynically, it makes me feel like maybe the players — or their agents — have made the same observation and are using this uncertainty for purposes of tactical positioning. I don’t recall these sorts of protests arising out of renewals in the past, probably because it’s so hard to take an objective stand on such a subjective matter. But they’re happening now, in a year that the new Collective Bargaining Agreement is going to be negotiated. Is someone or a group of someones trying to draw more attention to just how much low-service-time players are boned in the current CBA? To put pre-arb salaries on the agenda in ways they’ve not been before? Certainly agents would have an interest in that becoming a greater priority. And for good reason, I must add. Just because something is tactical doesn’t mean it’s a bad idea.

It’s definitely worth watching. It’s one of many reminders that, when it comes to the CBA, it’s not just players versus owners. Sometimes, it’s big market owners versus small market owners too. Sometimes, as may be the case here, it’s players with a lot of service time versus players with little service time.

Washington Nationals roster and schedule for 2020

Nationals roster and schedule
Mark Brown/Getty Images
1 Comment

The 2020 season is now a 60-game dash, starting on July 23 and ending, hopefully, with a full-size postseason in October. Between now and the start of the season, we’ll be giving quick capsule previews of each team, reminding you of where things stood back in Spring Training and where they stand now as we embark on what is sure to be the strangest season in baseball history. First up: The Washington Nationals roster and schedule:


When the season opens on July 23-24, teams can sport rosters of up to 30 players, with a minimum of 25. Two weeks later, rosters must be reduced to 28 and then, two weeks after that, they must be reduced to 26. Teams will be permitted to add a 27th player for doubleheaders.

In light of that, there is a great degree of latitude for which specific players will break summer camp. For now, though, here are who we expect to be on the Nationals roster to begin the season:


Yan Gomes
Kurt Suzuki


Eric Thames
Starlin Castro
Carter Kieboom
Trea Turner
Howie Kendrick
Asdrúbal Cabrera


Juan Soto
Victor Robles
Adam Eaton
Michael Taylor
Andrew Stevenson


Max Scherzer
Steven Strasburg
Patrick Corbin
Aníbal Sánchez
Austin Voth
Erick Fedde


Sean Doolittle
Daniel Hudson
Will Harris
Tanner Rainey
Wander Suero
Hunter Strickland
Roenis Elías


The Nationals shocked the world last year, recovering from an abysmal start to the season to win an NL Wild Card before cutting through the Dodgers, Cardinals, and Astros to win the first championship in franchise history. While the roster is largely unchanged, there is one gaping void: the loss of third baseman Anthony Rendon, who signed with the Angels. Rendon, a perennial MVP candidate, led the majors with 126 doubles and the NL with 44 doubles while smacking 34 homers with a 1.010 OPS last season. He’ll be replaced by the young Carter Kieboom and the veteran Kendrick and Cabrera. Those are some large shoes to fill.

With Rendon out of the picture, Juan Soto becomes the crux of the Nationals’ offense. Last year, he tied Rendon with 34 homers while knocking in 110 runs. He also, impressively, drew 108 walks, by far the highest on the team. The Nationals will likely have to utilize their speed even more. Last year, Soto stole 12 bases while Adam Eaton swiped 15, Victor Robles 28, and Trea Turner 35.

As was the case in 2019, the pitching will be how the Nationals punch their ticket to the postseason. Max Scherzer finished third in Cy Young balloting, his seventh consecutive top-five finish. The club retained Stephen Strasburg and brings back Patrick Corbin as well. There really isn’t a better 1-2-3 in the game. The rotation will be rounded out by Aníbal Sánchez and one of Austin Voth or Erick Fedde, though both are likely to see starts during the season.

The back of the bullpen is led by closer Sean Doolittle, who posted an uncharacteristically high — for him — 4.05 ERA last year. He still saved 29 games and averaged better than a strikeout per inning, so they’re in good hands. Daniel Hudson and Will Harris will work the seventh and eighth innings leading up to Doolittle.

As mentioned in the Braves preview, it’s tough to make any definitive statements about a 60-game season. Variance is going to have much more of an effect than it would in a 162-game season. Additionally, the NL East is highly competitive. It would be wrong to say with any degree of confidence that the Nationals will win the NL East. For example, the updated PECOTA standings from Baseball Prospectus only project a five-game difference between first and last place in the NL East. What we can say is that the Nationals will give everyone a run for their money in 2020.


Every team will play 60 games. Teams will be playing 40 games against their own division rivals and 20 interleague games against the corresponding geographic division from the other league. Six of the 20 interleague games will be “rivalry” games.

  • July 23, 25-26: vs. Yankees
  • July 27-28: vs. Blue Jays
  • July 29-30: @ Blue Jays
  • July 31-August 2: @ Marlins
  • August 4-5: vs. Mets
  • August 7-9: vs. Orioles
  • August 10-13: @ Mets
  • August 14-16: @ Orioles
  • August 17-19: @ Braves
  • August 21-24: vs. Marlins
  • August 25-27: vs. Phillies
  • August 28-30: @ Red Sox
  • August 31-September 3: @ Phillies
  • September 4-6: @ Braves
  • September 7-8: vs. Rays
  • September 10-13: vs. Braves
  • September 15-16: @ Rays
  • September 18-20: @ Marlins
  • September 21-23: vs. Phillies
  • September 24-27: vs. Mets

The entire Nationals schedule can be seen here.