Let's Make A Deal

Last night was the deadline for offering arbitration to your free agent players, and the Nats made two surprising moves. They offered arbitration to Loco Jose Guillen, and declined arbitration for the Ramon Ortiz Cy Young Express. Both are a little headscratching.

First, a bit of an explanation for those who aren't transaction junkies (And if you are, just jump down to the first bullet). After 6 full years of major-league service, players whose contracts expire have the right to become free agents, and are able to shop their services around. Teams, though, have the right to offer salary arbitration to their departing free agents. If arbitration isn't offered, nothing really changes. They player can just walk away.

But if it is offered a few things happen. First, it puts the next move into the player's court. He has until 12/7 to decide whether to accept or reject the offer. If he accepts, he takes himself off the market and essentially signs a one-year deal with his original team. The player and team will later meet at a salary arbitration hearing, where each side makes a case for a salary based on what other players of similar type are making. The arbiter picks one number or the other. In most cases, though, the player and team come to a compromise before the hearing, frequently splitting the difference between there two figures. No player really wants to sit in a board room while listening to their boss run through a litany of faults so they can nickel and dime their salary. I'd say that no team does either, but other than the resulting salary, I can see Mr. Kasten rather enjoying that part of the process.

If he rejects the offer, nothing really changes. He stays a free agent, and can still re-sign with the original team. (It used to be that there was a silly rule that prevented the player from returning 'til May, but that was one of the casualties of the latest CBA.)

But his decline means one important thing; the team can receive draft pick compensation if he signs elsewhere. As we saw with Soriano, free agents are ranked by a crazy Elias formula nobody's ever seen, and which really doesn't work. For compensation purposes, they're lumped into a few categories, but the only ones that draw compensation are Type A and B.

A team that loses a Type A, you'll recall, loses their first-round draft pick, plus the original team gains an additional pick sandwiched between the first and second rounds. (The exception, we saw with the Cubs signing Soriano, is that a team with one of the first 15 draft picks can't lose their first-rounder; they lose a second-rounder instead). Signing a Type B has no real 'cost' to the signing team. The losing team only gets a sandwich pick. (Prior to the latest CBA, Type Bs gave up a first-rounder)

With that in mind....

What the hell does this mean for the Nats?

Declining arbitration to Tony "4.2 Innings" Armas and Robert "@#$#@$" Fick are no-brainers. Armas was a C, which merits no compensation. Fick wasn't even ranked that highly. There's no benefit to offering them arbitration, especially as there's a chance that the arb process would award them more money than they'd make as Free Agents.

But declining arbitration to Ramon Ortiz? I don't understand why. I can't really see what the downside to offering it to him would be. Think back to the process. If they offer and he accepts, the worst that would happen is that he comes back on a one-year deal. He'd likely make something like 4-5 million (I'm pulling that out of my butt). That's more than I'd like to pay for him, but not by much. It's certainly not going to crush the team or hurt the long-term future of the team. But if he declines and ends up signing elsewhere, the Nats would get one of those first-round sandwich picks, something created out of thin air.

They'd either get a likely draft pick or one year of a crappy pitcher who, if anything, can eat innings. I don't see what the downside to either option is. But by declining, they get nothing. No benefit at all.

If they were so giddy and eager to get picks for Soriano, why weren't they in this case? Where's the consistency of their decision? The cynic in me would point out that they don't want to spend the money on either 1) the active roster or 2) the extra first-round draft pick signing bonus, but I'm not that cynical. ;)

I'm sure there's a rational explanation for this, right? Right?

The other mystifying decision is the offer of arbitration to Jose Guillen. Coming off a season of injury and with his many attitude problems, is there really going to be a hot market for him in free agency? Especially since it's likely that he won't be back til the All-Star break? There's a very slim chance that someone else would sign him, meaning there's little chance they'll get a draft pick.

Plus, in Guillen's case, a reading of the tea leaves is likely to show that the 4-6 million he could make in arbitration is going to be higher than the deal he'd get on the open market. He'd be crazy not to accept.

So the Nats will be dealing from a position of weakness. If they really wanted Guillen back, (and with Kearns, Logan, Church, Casto, Restovich and Escobar already filling the outfield, I can't see a spot for him) they could've just negotiated a regular deal with him -- one that's incentive-laden and likely worth less than he'll make in arbitration. Now they certainly can still negotiate and sign something with him before the arb hearings, but they'll be dealing from a position of weakness. If he doesn't like their 3/12 offer (or whatever), he can just take them to arbitration.

Where's the upside for the Nats?

I dunno. I don't see where either of those decisions makes too much sense for the Nats. I thought that the alternatives, in both cases, were no-brainers. I didn't even think to write about them prior to because I assumed they were automatic decisions.

Am I missing the boat? Is there some decent explanation for these two moves?