Thirty One
Safe is safe.
- Dec 28, 2003
- 28,981
- 24,357
Janko might fit this bill.Wonder if they sign a cheap potential 2C/3C early in free agency in anticipation of walking away from his arbitration award.
Janko might fit this bill.Wonder if they sign a cheap potential 2C/3C early in free agency in anticipation of walking away from his arbitration award.
was told his QO would be much higher . . . and Georgiev would be traded so Hank could stay . . . and ADA/Chytil is enough for Eichel . . . and the Rangers would have no concerns . . . and Dog had better ratings than me
Dog? Ratings?
Bump. No way he's getting more than $5M...
They kind of have to, since often the arbitrator just splits the difference. Am I right about that? It’s not a one-or-the-other thing and often they just decide on the midway point. So it makes sense for Strome to go high and the Rangers to go low.I feared this schmuck is looking for 5.5ish ... lmao
But we kinda low-balled him with 3.6, yikes
Bump. No way he's getting more than $5M...
From what we've seen this year though is that the arbitrator is taking into account a flat cap.Feels like a higher than average gap.
The annoying tendency is for the arbitrator to split the difference, if he does that the AAV will be high enough for the Rangers to say no.
Hard to see Strome getting much more than the 3.6 million in today's UFA market with how tight cap is- so I could see him accepting that eventually.
Feels like a higher than average gap.
The annoying tendency is for the arbitrator to split the difference, if he does that the AAV will be high enough for the Rangers to say no.
Hard to see Strome getting much more than the 3.6 million in today's UFA market with how tight cap is- so I could see him accepting that eventually.
What I am wondering is the walk-away number Gorton and JD have in mind. Is it the exact minimum as per the rule or internally are they saying, "Over $5MM, we walk away. $5MM or under, we accept it."?
Baseball is either or.I'm annoyed with the whole arbitration process. I used to think the idea was to have it as "either /or" so that arbitrator would decide the award based on which side was closer to his perceived FMV. In this way I'm sure the gap would be a lot closer. Since the arbitrators started to split the difference, it became a guessing exercise - where the other party would come in and where to set up you offer accordingly. This is not what I'd call a good faith process it was supposed to be.