Contracts Tendered to Masterson, Perez(es), Asdrubal, and Others

by afh4 on Dec 13, 2011 10:18 AM EST in Transactions

Last night was the deadline for the Indians to offer contracts, and they did so to all the unsigned players on the 40 man roster. This includes the 7 arbitration eligible players—Chris Perez, Rafael Perez, Justin Masterson, Jack Hannahan, Asdrubal Cabrera, Shin-Soo Choo, and Joe Smith. This means, in the simplest terms, that these players will be back with the Indians next season. As for how much they'll be paid, the Indians will exchange salaries with the players by 1/18 and attempt to negotiate a deal; if they're unable to come to terms with any player, the team will head to arbitration where a supposedly impartial arbitrator (get it?) will determine a fair rate of pay.

As we mention every year, the Indians haven't gone to arbitration since 1991. That's almost certainly a decided upon tactic, as arbitration hearings can be acrimonious. Also, I assume it's a big waste of time to prepare all the arbitration documents and arguments. Bastian has been all over this, both on Twitter and his blog. Last night, he tweeted the arb-eligible players and their 2011 salaries, which will serve as baselines for their 2012 salaries.

CLE arbeligibles: Choo (3.975M in '11), CPerez (2.225M), Cabrera (2.025M), RPerez (1.33M), Smith (870K), Hannahan (500K), Masterson (468K).

If I haven't missed anything big these intricacies of player contracts/control were basically unchanged in the new CBA. Jay has outlined these effectively a few times on this site, most notably in 2005 (Part 1 and Part 2) and 2006. If your'e unfamiliar with the roster management process that's really become inherent to all strategic aspects of the game at this point, I'd especially suggest Part 2 and the piece from 2006. The gist of what you need to know is summed up well in the latter:

As elaborated previously, when a team signs an amateur player, that team has exclusive rights to a player's services for six to seven full seasons -- in the majors. Once a player is added to the 40-man roster, his service time clock is running for every day he spends on the big-league club (or on the Disabled List). At the end of the season, if he's amassed at least six full years of service time, he's a free agent. If he hasn't, he's not. It's that simple.

Except for the money, that is. At the end of the season, if the player has less than three years of service time, the team can pay him any salary it wants to over the minimum, which generally means he'll make something like $400,000.

If, on the other hand, he's got at least three years of service time, he's eligible for arbitration -- in which case, he's going to get paid a very nice seven-digit number. Whether it's $1 million or $9.9 million, or somewhere in between, depends on how much service time he's got, how valuable a player he's been, and how much he's been paid in the past.

That's the basics you've got to understand to follow what's happening in this process; if anything has changed that I'm unaware of, please correct in the comments.

Tweet Comment 44 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

As far as the current iteration of the Tribe goes, this is about as feel good a group, with respect to performance, utilization and player acquisition acumen, as you will find. Turns out Masterson can be a starter, Choo isn’t a platoon player, Asdrubal can hit and play short, Perez (R.) is a vastly more valuable reliever than he could ever have been as a starter, Joe Smith can be good when used right, and Hannahan’s got nice hands for a piece off the scrap pile. Good job organization.

by APV on Dec 13, 2011 10:25 AM EST reply actions

Asdrubal can…play short

If you believe the advanced stats available to the public, that’s debatable. Fortunately his bat took off this year.

Looking at Chris Perez’s salary, he’s got to be pushed heavily on the trade market. There’s no sense in paying closer money to a mediocre reliever.

by callmrplow on Dec 13, 2011 1:14 PM EST up reply actions

If you believe the advanced stats available to the public, that’s debatable.

In this case, I don’t. At least not with respect to the basic question of whether he can play short. Is he an above-average defender at the position…probably not. But he can definitely play the position at this point in his career.

by APV on Dec 13, 2011 1:18 PM EST up reply actions

First time post here from Australia.

I think the metrics showed Droobs was making the play up the middle but not in the hole. I wonder if he was shading a fraction towards second having Hannahan at third and Orlando/Kipnis/Phelps at second?

by Aussie Wahoo on Dec 13, 2011 9:28 PM EST up reply actions

Ironically this was the rap on Jhonny Peralta if I recall correctly. Maybe it’s Progressive Field.

by hans on Dec 13, 2011 10:09 PM EST up reply actions

No credible authority believes that single-season defensive metrics can be taken at face value. Huge swings from year to year. Defensive metrics arguably are even more opportunity-dependent than RBI.

by Jay on Dec 13, 2011 2:17 PM EST up reply actions

To be fair, his last 2 years he’s put up an UZR/150 of -26 and a 4 year total of -47.8, peaking at -6.7 in ‘09. If you believe these numbers, it’s worse than any consecutive 2 year period or 4 year period Jeter has ever had.

by callmrplow on Dec 14, 2011 1:49 PM EST up reply actions

Well, that’s more or less fair, but there is a context, too. I don’t think he was the same defender in 2011 that he was in 2010, and I think most professional scouts would agree.

by Jay on Dec 14, 2011 3:03 PM EST up reply actions

There’s a lot of CP hate here, but how bad was he? Let’s compare the Central Division closers and throw in, like we always do for fun, Mariano Rivera. In games in which the closer was entrusted with a 1-run lead, here’s the Number of occurrences/Number of scoreless appearances/Number of scored upon appearances/Percentage of unscored upon appearances/Total runs allowed:

18 / 18-0 / 1000 / 0 Valverde, Det
15 / 13-2 / 867 / 2 Santos, Chi
22 / 19-3 / 864 / 6 Perez Cle
07 / 06-1 / 857 / 2 Nathan, Min
19 / 14-5 / 737 / 6 Rivera, NY
17 / 12-5 / 706 / 13 Soria, KC
12 / 07-5 / 583 / 8 Capps, Min

Same deal, after being handed a two-run lead:

16 / 14-2 / 875 / 2 Rivera
18 / 15-3 / 833 / 3 Valverde
08 / 06-2 / 750 / 2 Soria
07 / 05-2 / 714 / 2 Capps
10 / 07-3 / 700 / 4 Perez
14 / 08-6 / 571 / 12 Santos
04 / 01-3 / 250 / 4 Nathan

Three-run lead:

11 / 11-0 / 1000 / 0 Rivera
16 / 15-1 / 938 / 1 Valverde
10 / 9-1 / 900 / 2 Santos
07 / 5-2 / 714 / 3 Perez
08 / 5-3 / 625 / 6 Soria
05 / 03-2 / 600 / 3 Nathan
05 / 02-3 / 400 / 11 Capps

And given a 4 or more run lead:

03 / 3-0 / 1000 / 0 Capps
07 / 6-1 / 857 / 1 Santos
13 / 11-2 / 846 / 3 Valverde
08 / 5-3 / 625 / 7 Rivera
08 / 4-4 / 500 / 11 Soria
10 / 4-6 / 400 / 7 Perez
01 / 0-1 / 000 / 2 Nathan

To recap: given a 1- or 2-run lead:

36 / 33-3 / 917 / 3 Detroit
32 / 26-6 / 813 / 10 Cleveland
35 / 28-7 / 800 / 8 New York
29 / 21-8 / 724 / 14 Chicago
25 / 18-7 / 720 / 15 Kansas City
30 / 19-11 / 633 / 15 Minnesota

You’ll have to show me some data before I join any ‘Dump CP’ bandwagon.

by YoDaddyWags on Dec 13, 2011 2:45 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs

This further supports the “don’t ever use Rage in a non-save situation” argument

by APV on Dec 13, 2011 2:57 PM EST up reply actions

I’ve always felt this way as well. I am pro-CP but also feel like he will be moved in the near future (1-2 years) due to price and the emergence of Vinnie.

Matt LaPorta is the bane of my existence.

by USSChoo on Dec 13, 2011 3:51 PM EST up reply actions

I hate that argument.

As for Wags’ argument, aren’t you overlooking that he just got lucky with men on base?

by Jay on Dec 13, 2011 4:40 PM EST up reply actions

Mine eyes do not deceive me. Guy was bad in tie games.

Sure, small sample size, but I cannot unsee what I saw.

by emd2k3 on Dec 13, 2011 7:41 PM EST up reply actions

Compared to what? Here’s one Central Division closer last year in tie games: 7 G, 2-4 W/L, 6.75 ERA, 2.400 WHIP, 1.20 K/BB ratio. Here’s another: 12 G, 2-5 W/L, 5.11 ERA, 1.135 WHIP, 2.25 K/BB ratio.

I’ll give you a hint: the first line is Valverde’s.

by YoDaddyWags on Dec 13, 2011 8:54 PM EST up reply actions

Valverde being terrible in that split is beside the point.

Perez being bad in that split isn’t a reason to use him differently, it’s a reason to dump him, unless you think it’s a fluke.

by Jay on Dec 13, 2011 9:20 PM EST up reply actions

Dump him if you want, but you may want to actually look at the numbers for all the closers in tie games before you do. My real point is that if you say, “I saw this!” and provide no data, so that I can go to the first guy that comes to mind and find an even worse performer, you’ve not exactly provided useful content.

by YoDaddyWags on Dec 13, 2011 9:34 PM EST up reply actions

I don’t necessarily buy the argument that we don’t use CP in close games. I’m not going to make grand judgments based on a handful of innings — which also goes to the Valverde comparison.

I do know that we can’t pay a premium for a closer. We might pay a premium for a relief ace, even if our usage will be very similar to a closer. But if you really think you have to take tie games off the table for a guy, he ceases to be worth paying a premium. He’s just another reliever at that point.

by Jay on Dec 14, 2011 1:09 PM EST up reply actions

Sorry, I meant “tie games” at the top there, not merely “close games.”

by Jay on Dec 14, 2011 1:10 PM EST up reply actions

Okay, so Valverde shouldn’t be used it tie games, either.

Problem solved!

by emd2k3 on Dec 14, 2011 12:09 PM EST up reply actions

Oh, things in the random world of BABIP are too complicated. CP’s groundball and flyball BABIPs are pretty much in the middle of this Central Division plus Mariano cohort; it’s line drives where CP, with a 636 career BABIP, is way ahead of Santos (685), Rivera (717), Capps (724), Soria (736) and Valverde and Nathan (both 756). So is CP going to regress to the norm of this group? That collective BABIP is 726, probably pretty representative of closers in general (the prospective Indians 2012 rotation has a combined lifetime line drive BABIP of 735, to give you an idea of what it could be like for starters). Had CP put up a (putatively) normal line drive BABIP this past year, he would have given up another 5 hits—probably 4 singles and a double. But would they have come with men on base? Well, if they followed his other bases empty/men on ratios, 3 would have been base empty blows, two with men on. Obviously his numbers would be worse, but randomness being what it is, who knows? A telling fact, maybe: Mariano Rivera’s low-LD BABIP years have produced less WAR than his middling and high LD BABIP years.

But the question of regression is itself hard to figure. CP has LD BABIP rates of 588, 720, 657 and 576 in his 4-year career. Presumably it’s on its way up, but to where? One of CP’s career comps is Bobby Thigpen, with a 669 career LD BABIP, whose last 6 years showed 723, 622, 618, 674, 786 and 574.

Anyway, maybe we should have a pool for his 2012 BABIP; it’s all guesswork.

by YoDaddyWags on Dec 13, 2011 9:31 PM EST up reply actions

I feel like you’re both overcomplicating and oversimplifying by comparing CP to those specific five guys.

Why not just compare his 2011 to his own career and to the entire history of pitching?

by Jay on Dec 13, 2011 10:29 PM EST up reply actions

Those five guys don’t differ hugely from the entire history of pitching—or since 1988, when they started keeping this data. At any rate, I was comparing how well Cleveland closed out games compared to its divisional rivals, to get a measure of where CP ranked. I gave you CP’s yearly LD BABIPs; for GBs, it’s 256, 163, 113, 300; FB, 174, 130, 091, 082.
Overall: 274, 254, 231, 240.

The AL in 2011 was 231 GB BABIP, 139 FB BABIP and 714 LD BABIP. The AL central closers are at 220, 107 and 731.

Finding a cohort of pitchers who have in the first four years of their careers put up CP’s level of extremely low BABIPs, to see what they went on to do, is beyond my talents. But I’d welcome the data.

In general, BABIP doesn’t quite seem to provide that “Aha!” moment to explain reliever seasonal variations the way it can for hitters or starting pitchers. Neither Joe Nathan nor Mariano Rivera seemed particularly affected by a high or low LD-BABIP, for instance.

The whole exercise is one avenue to wander down in an attempt to gauge whether CP’s accomplishments thus far are sustainable, or if Rage-haters are right in their desire to dump him now in favor of Vinnie. I think Perez’s 2011 contributions are being undervalued. I suspect he can duplicate them.

by YoDaddyWags on Dec 13, 2011 11:21 PM EST up reply actions

I think you are framing an argument that perhaps is held by a certain segment of the fan-base contingent (these Rage-haters as you say), that simply lacks enough substance or support to be of a meaningful challenge to those who support keeping Chris Perez off of the trading block.

The group that has a stronger stance, although requests the same outcome of Perez being sent away from the Indians, is the one viewing Perez as a “sell high”, or at least “sell to some other sap before the stock comes crashing down”. I think this argument stands out to be the strongest when fully considering the impact of retaining Perez. Primary to this is one (fairly) constant and that is salary. Can the Indians get similar production (or better yet, projected production) at pre-arbitration or better said, pre-arbitration closer level cost?

by hans on Dec 14, 2011 12:49 AM EST up reply actions

Maybe there’s been more “CP hate” here than I’ve seen, but don’t confuse the “Trade CP” with a “Dump CP” argument as the idea that Perez has value is pretty important to the idea that they could trade him for something of value. Looking over the roster, the bullpen is obviously a strength and the question becomes whether the Indians could flip CP (because of his value and his 3 remaining years of club control) for something that would improve the team (1B/LF) with the rest of the bullpen having the talent to fill the void that would be created by trading Perez.

That all said, the return in trades for closers this off-season certainly would lead me to think that Perez sticks around, if only because the Indians aren’t going to find equal (or greater) value for him, even if he’s only get more expensive after this year.

by The DiaTriber on Dec 13, 2011 8:46 PM EST up reply actions

Most of the trade CP comments have been less strategic and more vitriolic, in my unscientific and uncodified opinion.

by YoDaddyWags on Dec 13, 2011 8:56 PM EST up reply actions

I get the same sense.

by Jay on Dec 13, 2011 9:19 PM EST up reply actions

Where is your numbers to back this up?

/throws match towards pile of gasoline soaked clothes

by hans on Dec 13, 2011 10:17 PM EST up reply actions

In my defense, I hold no vitriol towards Perez; he’s been a fantastic closer. My beef is that Cleveland is on a limited payroll and despite Perez’s fantastic save percentage, has been a mediocre relief pitcher. His K% fell below 6% last year while his BB rate hovered around 4%. Meanwhile, his 120 ERA+ was sustained with a BABIP of .234 and a Rivera-like HR rate of 5.7%.

My personal suggestion to trade him is based on the fact that he’s a closer, which is generally highly coveted in the trade market, his peripherals don’t lead me to believe we have a Joe Nathan here, and they have a number of arms coming through the system that could potentially replace him.

by callmrplow on Dec 14, 2011 1:58 PM EST up reply actions

Reasonable propositions. Closers seem to be netting prospects these days, which may not be what the FO wants for 2011.

by YoDaddyWags on Dec 14, 2011 3:13 PM EST up reply actions

Agreed.

by Jay on Dec 13, 2011 9:19 PM EST up reply actions

Chris Antonetti should find a way to go backwards in that Pure Rage deal. LOWER IT! And pay big Justin.

With or Without the H

by johnf34 on Dec 13, 2011 10:27 AM EST reply actions

They can offer 20% less than he made last year (at minimum), but they would lose.

by Jay on Dec 13, 2011 2:17 PM EST up reply actions

New on here!

Loved hearing that! Brand new Indians fan! Live in NC where there are no baseball teams, was a partial Yankees fan based on meeting Jeter once. But I like watching the Indians play! Go Tribe!!!!!

-J Pugh
Follow me on twitter @PughDaddy73-

by PughDaddy73 on Dec 13, 2011 11:26 AM EST reply actions