Comments on: Arroyo – Long term deal? http://redlegnation.com/2006/04/30/arroyo-long-term-deal/ A Cincinnati Reds Blog | Still trying to Vote Votto Thu, 29 Jul 2010 07:04:35 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0 By: Chris http://redlegnation.com/2006/04/30/arroyo-long-term-deal/#comment-17348 Chris Mon, 01 May 2006 21:44:16 +0000 http://redlegnation.com/2006/04/30/arroyo-long-term-deal/#comment-17348 I <strong>am </strong>that terrible. I'm just missing the kudos. :razz: I am that terrible. I’m just missing the kudos. :razz:

]]> By: al http://redlegnation.com/2006/04/30/arroyo-long-term-deal/#comment-17346 al Mon, 01 May 2006 20:02:08 +0000 http://redlegnation.com/2006/04/30/arroyo-long-term-deal/#comment-17346 i'm constantly amazed by how bad hal mccoy is at reporting about baseball, and how popular he is for the same reporting. I wish i could be that terrible and well thought of at my job. i’m constantly amazed by how bad hal mccoy is at reporting about baseball, and how popular he is for the same reporting. I wish i could be that terrible and well thought of at my job.

]]> By: Chris http://redlegnation.com/2006/04/30/arroyo-long-term-deal/#comment-17225 Chris Sun, 30 Apr 2006 18:27:07 +0000 http://redlegnation.com/2006/04/30/arroyo-long-term-deal/#comment-17225 I even looked at the Basic Agreement on this - you need to have your 5 yrs service time at the time of the trade. Arroyo didn't, so he's stuck here. I even looked at the Basic Agreement on this – you need to have your 5 yrs service time at the time of the trade. Arroyo didn’t, so he’s stuck here.

]]> By: Chris http://redlegnation.com/2006/04/30/arroyo-long-term-deal/#comment-17223 Chris Sun, 30 Apr 2006 18:26:04 +0000 http://redlegnation.com/2006/04/30/arroyo-long-term-deal/#comment-17223 I did the same legwork as Pinski (for the same reason). McCoy's off his nut. The best part is that he's five weeks late in being wrong. If he was right, shouldn't he have written that at the time of the deal, since it would've been a HUGE screwup by Krivsky? Instead, he just slips it into a Q&A column a long time later. I'm disappointed in the level of effort he shows. I did the same legwork as Pinski (for the same reason). McCoy’s off his nut. The best part is that he’s five weeks late in being wrong. If he was right, shouldn’t he have written that at the time of the deal, since it would’ve been a HUGE screwup by Krivsky? Instead, he just slips it into a Q&A column a long time later. I’m disappointed in the level of effort he shows.

]]> By: Pinski http://redlegnation.com/2006/04/30/arroyo-long-term-deal/#comment-17209 Pinski Sun, 30 Apr 2006 17:54:08 +0000 http://redlegnation.com/2006/04/30/arroyo-long-term-deal/#comment-17209 Yeah, I freaked out about this the day after the trade, because I was looking for anything to bash the trade. I still don't like the trade, but if Arroyo pitchers like he has for a full season I'll warm up really quick. Yeah, I freaked out about this the day after the trade, because I was looking for anything to bash the trade.
I still don’t like the trade, but if Arroyo pitchers like he has for a full season I’ll warm up really quick.

]]> By: daedalus http://redlegnation.com/2006/04/30/arroyo-long-term-deal/#comment-17197 daedalus Sun, 30 Apr 2006 17:04:04 +0000 http://redlegnation.com/2006/04/30/arroyo-long-term-deal/#comment-17197 Thanks for the info, Pinski - that's a relief. It was my understsanding that Arroyo was stuck with us for three years, so you've just verified that. Thanks for the info, Pinski – that’s a relief. It was my understsanding that Arroyo was stuck with us for three years, so you’ve just verified that.

]]> By: Pinski http://redlegnation.com/2006/04/30/arroyo-long-term-deal/#comment-17196 Pinski Sun, 30 Apr 2006 16:16:34 +0000 http://redlegnation.com/2006/04/30/arroyo-long-term-deal/#comment-17196 The idea is to give the player some more bargaining power. It stops teams from making sign and trades. So that the Yankees can't sign someone on the cheap and then trade the player to the D-Backs. A long-term deal (or in reality a mult-year deal, as the rules call it) is anything longer than one year. In Arroyo's case he was traded during his 3 year deal, so if he has enough Major League time he could void the rest of his deal. However Arroyo doesn't have enough time. He only has 3.15 years, and he needs 5. ----------- Also, a player with five years of service time who is traded in the middle of a multi-year contract may demand another trade prior to the start of the season following the one in which he was traded. <a href="http://espn.go.com/mlb/s/transanctionsprimer.html" rel="nofollow">Link</a> The idea is to give the player some more bargaining power. It stops teams from making sign and trades. So that the Yankees can’t sign someone on the cheap and then trade the player to the D-Backs.

A long-term deal (or in reality a mult-year deal, as the rules call it) is anything longer than one year.
In Arroyo’s case he was traded during his 3 year deal, so if he has enough Major League time he could void the rest of his deal. However Arroyo doesn’t have enough time. He only has 3.15 years, and he needs 5.

———–

Also, a player with five years of service time who is traded in the middle of a multi-year contract may demand another trade prior to the start of the season following the one in which he was traded.
Link

]]> By: Jim McCullough http://redlegnation.com/2006/04/30/arroyo-long-term-deal/#comment-17194 Jim McCullough Sun, 30 Apr 2006 15:10:09 +0000 http://redlegnation.com/2006/04/30/arroyo-long-term-deal/#comment-17194 The MLBPA agreement allows ballplayers to be a FA if they are traded during a long term contract? That's the craziest thing I have ever heard. Why would a team make a deal if that were the case? I doubt Arroyo returns to Boston. The Red Sox were trying to trade him all winter. Why would he return to a place where he was unwanted? The MLBPA agreement allows ballplayers to be a FA if they are traded during a long term contract? That’s the craziest thing I have ever heard. Why would a team make a deal if that were the case?

I doubt Arroyo returns to Boston. The Red Sox were trying to trade him all winter. Why would he return to a place where he was unwanted?

]]> By: Bill http://redlegnation.com/2006/04/30/arroyo-long-term-deal/#comment-17192 Bill Sun, 30 Apr 2006 14:30:15 +0000 http://redlegnation.com/2006/04/30/arroyo-long-term-deal/#comment-17192 I'm not defending McCoy, who has driven me crazy for years and is know for inaccuracies, but what does MLB consider a "long term deal"? I’m not defending McCoy, who has driven me crazy for years and is know for inaccuracies, but what does MLB consider a “long term deal”?

]]> By: doug http://redlegnation.com/2006/04/30/arroyo-long-term-deal/#comment-17191 doug Sun, 30 Apr 2006 14:24:49 +0000 http://redlegnation.com/2006/04/30/arroyo-long-term-deal/#comment-17191 1. Hal McCoy is in need of a "fact check" button as much as a 5th grade student is in need of a "spell check" button. 2. Is a 3 year contract truly long term? When I think long term contract I think 5-6-7 years. 1. Hal McCoy is in need of a “fact check” button as much as a 5th grade student is in need of a “spell check” button.

2. Is a 3 year contract truly long term? When I think long term contract I think 5-6-7 years.

]]>