Fair Value For Navarro
by Tommy Rancel on Jan 21, 2009 9:11 AM EST
Email
PrintThe Rays and Dioner Navarro failed to come to terms yesterday before the team's self-imposed deadline. Navarro's agent said he would like to continue talks, but senior VP Gerry Hunsicker ended that idea pretty quickly.
"I do not see a situation where we would waver, it's our policy.''
As for not reaching agreement, Hunsicker said: "I can't say that I'm surprised, just disappointed.''
We learned late yesterday afternoon that the Rays offered $2.1 million and Navarro asked for $2.5 million. The difficulty is figuring out who the real Dioner Navarro is. He had an abysmal 2007, but was an All Star in 2008. So which is it? He is definitely not as bad as his '07 season, but he probably won't much better than his 2008 season, which for a catcher isn't a bad thing.
As we've discussed the biggest numbers that will be thrown around in an arbitration are the "slash" numbers; Batting Average, On-Base Percentage and Slugging Percentage. For a catcher they will also probably use the percentage runners thrown out.
In the past two years there have been two players who have been ARB1 eligible with similar numbers to Navarro in different ways. In 2007, Navarro and Gerald Laird had very similar number and they were awful.
| 2007 | BA | OBP | SLG | OPS | CS% |
| Navarro | 0.227 | 0.286 | 0.356 | 0.642 | 25.3 |
| Laird | 0.224 | 0.278 | 0.344 | 0.622 | 39.8 |
Laird, who was 28 at the time, received a 1yr/$1.6 million contract for his services. So in terms of a Navarro contract this should be the floor. Laird had another similar season to Navarro in 2008 and received a 1yr/$2.8 million contract yesterday as an ARB2 player.
The other comparison I want to make is to fellow All Star Catcher, Russell Martin. Martin, like Navarro, was arbitration eligible for the first time this season. He received a 1yr/$3.9 million deal. Martin had an excellent campaign in 2007, but regressed in 2008. However, his numbers were on par with Navarro's.
| 2008 | BA | OBP | SLG | OPS | CS% |
| Navarro | 0.295 | 0.349 | 0.407 | 0.756 | 35.7 |
| Martin | 0.280 | 0.385 | 0.396 | 0.781 | 19.5 |
Martin has the OPS advantage, but in these hearings batting average means something. Navarro was also far and away better at catching baserunners. If Laird's $1.6 million was Navarro's floor, then Martin's $3.9 million should be his ceiling.
Just to show how close Navarro and Laird were in 2007 and then Navarro and Martin in 2008, here are the charts Erik loves so much:
Navarro's request of $2.5 million falls right in line with the Laird "floor" and Martin "ceiling" theory. He had his Gerald Laird season and his Russell Martin season and his request falls almost right in the middle. It's a shame that the team and his representatives couldn't just split the 400k difference and save the headache of a hearing because as Paul DePodesta explains, "Arbitration is never a pleasant (or terribly productive) exercise for the parties involved."
51 comments
|
Do you like this story?
Comments
I'd like to see
the Rays back off on their policy. Both cases are so close. We don’t need these distractions
Can't set a bad example by backing down
Everybody knew the policy going into the negotiations. As Hunsicker said it’s more disappointing than anything that they were close, but couldn’t agree to terms.
by Tommy Rancel on Jan 21, 2009 10:28 AM EST up reply actions
How is adherence to a self-issued policy any differenct from stubborness?
by GomesSweetGomes on Jan 21, 2009 10:48 AM EST up reply actions
The players know what they're getting into. They know it's a policy that has been very effective. Them trying to butt heads against it is stubborn.
by Erik Hahmann on Jan 21, 2009 10:55 AM EST up reply actions
Are you implying
1. That they are being stubborn by asking for what they perceive as their value, or
2. That they are being stubborn by trying to negotiate.
Because the effectiveness of the policy would only be relevant to #1. And they are no Josh Pauls.
by GomesSweetGomes on Jan 21, 2009 11:10 AM EST up reply actions
I'm saying that trying to run over a brick wall that you know ISN'T going to budge is stubborn.
by Erik Hahmann on Jan 21, 2009 11:14 AM EST up reply actions
Ok, then I will assume you meant #1
In which case they might both run through the wall and giggle when the arb hearings are done.
by GomesSweetGomes on Jan 21, 2009 11:20 AM EST up reply actions
Going to the Arb hearings isn't the issue
It’s trying to continue talks past the deadline.
by Erik Hahmann on Jan 21, 2009 11:23 AM EST up reply actions
I just don't buy it
Saying “OK, we’re going to arbitration, but I think I will win, and if you still want to talk, here’s my number” is seen as relatively MORE stubborn?
by GomesSweetGomes on Jan 21, 2009 11:27 AM EST up reply actions
If you know the team WON'T talk with you past the deadline, I think it's stupid to waste your time.
by Erik Hahmann on Jan 21, 2009 11:34 AM EST up reply actions
I don't know if it's stubbornness
Really, with the marginal difference between both contracts, I’d expect the Rays to just go ahead and submit figures with an explination that amounts to what we all expect, we think he deserves this much money because he played like this kind of player. This isn’t like the Phillies with Ryan Howard who are going to have to tear him down quite a bit.
It's no different than any other companies policies
If a company has a dress code and really good worker wants to wear jeans, but it’s against the policy should the company not be “stubborn” and just let them wear jeans? It’s a company policy, it’s not a secret and it’s not going to change.
by Tommy Rancel on Jan 21, 2009 10:58 AM EST up reply actions
The analogy doesn't fit here.
We are talking about continuing negotiations over salaries, not a code of conduct for the workplace. If Aybar and Navarro both win their cases, it will be seen (and rightly so) as the result of inflexible policy.
And assuming the analogy fit, I think it would depend on the value of the worker versus the value of the policy. Here the Rays may lose several thousand dollars if they remain unwilling to evaluate their policy for sake of taking a phone call or two.
And it’s not like Navarro and Aybar have themselves handcuffed to the front doors at the Trop. Their actions in this situation are no more or less stubborn than the FO.
by GomesSweetGomes on Jan 21, 2009 11:08 AM EST up reply actions
But a company policy is a company policy regardless.
You are an employee of the company. They have rules and regardless if you agree with them or not you know the rules. You shouldn’t expect them to bend or change the policy. This goes from the Rays arb policy to the Yanks facial hair policy. However, stupid or stubborn they seem it’s the team policy and expecting them to change it is stubborn.
by Tommy Rancel on Jan 21, 2009 11:16 AM EST up reply actions
But
If the policy will have adverse consequences for the team, which it very well might here, then being unwilling to re-evaluate is stubborn.
Ex. If Teixeira had told the Yanks he’d be willing to sign with them for 20 million less than with Boston, but only if they’d let him sport facial hair, the Yanks would be dumb to not re-evaluate their policy.
Both sides are stubborn here.
by GomesSweetGomes on Jan 21, 2009 11:19 AM EST up reply actions
They have a 50/50 shot
at losing 500k or saving 500k. It’s Friedman’s policy and it’s up to him to win the cases. So far with the policy in place the team hasn’t lost a dollar in an arbitration case so there is no reason to change it before these hearings. If he goes 0-2 maybe he does next year, but right now there is no reason to change something that has worked for him.
by Tommy Rancel on Jan 21, 2009 11:26 AM EST up reply actions
In the past, cases that go to arbitration lean in favor of the teams.
And I’m guessing Friedman wouldn’t go to arb for a 50/50 shot at winning. He’d want to win the majority of the cases to make it worth it, both monetarily and considering good-will.
Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.
by Sky Kalkman on Jan 21, 2009 12:07 PM EST up reply actions
I don't think you can evaluate a policy
without knowing the reasons for it. It is possible that a policy may have bad repercussions in a particular instance but remain worthwhile overall. Apparently the Rays consider their policy on negotiating essentially worthwhile and are willing to accept those cases when it disappoints.
As for your Teixeira example, I think the answer is no, they would not be dumb to refuse Teixeira if they consider the facial hair policy integral to their success as a team. It might make them rethink the entire policy if it meant losing Teixeira, but that is a different issue. They could not make him an exception.
So the results of the arbitration may convince the Rays to alter the policy. But if they continue to think that it serves an important purpose, they will not change it, nor should they.
And by continuing to call the Rays
The player agents are not serving an important purpose for their clients?
My whole point was that there is no difference between strict adherence to policy and individual stubbornness. One is not “better” than the other, and I think it’s silly to attribute the player actions to a character flaw, while excusing the front office for the exact same behavior by saying “the rules are the rules”
by GomesSweetGomes on Jan 21, 2009 11:30 AM EST up reply actions
And as to the Tex thing
They would be ridiculously dumb not to reconsider whether the policy was helping the team in-fact.
by GomesSweetGomes on Jan 21, 2009 11:32 AM EST up reply actions
No.
because “helping the team in-fact” is more complicated than the signing of one player. That is the judgment the team has to make. It may convince them to change the policy if in their judgment Teixeira is important enough to do so, but it is perfectly reasonable to think that a team would not consider any individual player more important than a policy.
As for judging the stubbornness of a player or team, adhering to a policy is not stubbornness. Continuing to act as if there were no policy when it has been enforced in every other case is stubbornness.
"Continuing to act as if there were no policy when it has been enforced in every other case is stubbornness."
Uh, no it’s not.
It’s stubborn to adhere to the policy if the policy isn’t reasonable for one reason or another. Maybe they have a legitimate reason for the policy and that’s fine, but what Gomes is describing is an example of an arbitrary policy without much of a benefit. I’ve always viewed the Yankees no facial hair rule as sort of like the no green M&Ms rider in the Van Halen contract – it’s something they do because they can get away with it and to make sure others are paying attention. That’s about it. I haven’t heard about anyone not signing with the Yankees because they didn’t want to shave though, so it hasn’t harmed them, but that doesn’t mean they’re not being stubborn in sticking to it.
Vogt early, Vogt often.
To clarify
What you said is capriciousness – the exact opposite of stubbornness.
Vogt early, Vogt often.
We are getting far afield here
I am not supposing that the Yankee policy makes sense. I am speaking hypothetically when referring to it. They may detect some relationship between being clean shaven and winning or perhaps between being clean shaven and selling paraphernalia, though I doubt it. Or they may think their image defines their brand, and that is critical to their success. And I agree that making a policy simply to prove you can is capricious. But none of that is really at issue in this thread.
My point is that in the case of the Rays, having to go to arbitration with Navarro and Aybar cannot be taken in isolation as if that is all the policy is about. I do not know whether it is a good policy or not, and their experience with Aybar and Navarro may force a reevaluation of it by the Rays. But I can postulate some important reasons for it, and the Rays may think that even if they lose something in this case, the overall positive effects are more significant.
Thus, they are not being capricious or stubborn. They have established a policy that they think has worked well. They think it will continue to work well. The possible exception this year has not convinced them they are wrong. I suppose if I really knew their reasons fully, I might think them wrong, but as I don’t, I certainly would not call them stubborn.
It's different
If you don’t like your company, you can pick up and move to another one.
Vogt early, Vogt often.
It's not a new policy. This is the way it's been since Friedman took over.
I’m not saying I agree with it, but I’m not going to argue with Friedman on how to run the team.
by Tommy Rancel on Jan 21, 2009 10:35 AM EST up reply actions
its our policy? well the policy is dumb...
the policy should be something like we will not negotiate further if we are more then 500k apart at the time we submit numbers, or something like that. needlessly creating ill will b/t a player and the team over 400k when the deadline is still OVER A MONTH AWAY seems like a very very poor policy. its called a negotiation b/c you have to actually negotiate, otherwise they may just let it go to arbitration every single time. i am wholly against this policy and think it is foolish and unnecessary.
Navarro and Aybar are professionals
I think they both know business is business, especially for this team, which has to monitor the budget wherever it can.
It’s not as if they’re going to stop practicing because the team won’t fork over another half million.
by ReasonableDoubt on Jan 21, 2009 12:59 PM EST up reply actions
Navarro doesn't seem worried by any of it
Per the Times
Navarro said that won’t be a problem. “Business is business,” he said. “I want to play here the rest of my life. They’ve got to do what they’ve got to do, and I’ve got to do what I’ve got do. I’m trying to get ready for another World Series. I won’t take anything personally. Stuff happens.”
What I read
Navarro said that won’t be a problem while feeding on a hot dog. "Business is business," he said. "I want toplayeat here the rest of my life. They’ve got to do what they’ve got to do, and I’ve got todoeat what I’ve gotdoin my fridge. I’m trying to get ready for anotherWorld Seriessausage hoagie. Iwon’t takeeat anything personally. Stuffhappensmy face."
by kericr on Jan 21, 2009 1:41 PM EST up reply actions 2 recs
humor is your strong suit my friend.
Rays 2009 Slogan: "Come back with your shield or on it"
by PriceMultiCyYoungs on Jan 21, 2009 2:24 PM EST up reply actions
What would you expect him to say?
“I’m sooooooooooooo out of here when my contract is up”
by GomesSweetGomes on Jan 21, 2009 1:34 PM EST up reply actions
The main concern of some people is a players feelings will be hurt
and therefore mess with the “chemistry.” From Navi’s comments we shouldn’t have that problem
by Tommy Rancel on Jan 21, 2009 1:47 PM EST up reply actions
yep, this killed the Phillies last year after Howards ugly Arb hearing.
Rays 2009 Slogan: "Come back with your shield or on it"
by PriceMultiCyYoungs on Jan 21, 2009 2:24 PM EST up reply actions
He didn't exaclty light things up in the first half last year
Not that I think the hearing have any effect on production. Future signability is another matter.
by GomesSweetGomes on Jan 21, 2009 2:50 PM EST up reply actions
Fascinating
that fans can judge so definitively a policy whose purpose they can only guess, whose effects they cannot know and the reasoning behind which they cannot fathom.
That cuts both ways does it not?
For attacking or defending the policy
by GomesSweetGomes on Jan 21, 2009 5:05 PM EST up reply actions
No,
not If one is simply reserving judgment but allowing benefit of the doubt based on respect for what they have done so far.
You are right that the policy could be good or bad
But pretending to be an objective bystander to strenghten your argument…c’mon
by GomesSweetGomes on Jan 21, 2009 9:08 PM EST up reply actions
There is no pretense about it.
Here is my first post on the matter:
"I don’t think you can evaluate a policy
without knowing the reasons for it. It is possible that a policy may have bad repercussions in a particular instance but remain worthwhile overall. Apparently the Rays consider their policy on negotiating essentially worthwhile and are willing to accept those cases when it disappoints.
So the results of the arbitration may convince the Rays to alter the policy. But if they continue to think that it serves an important purpose, they will not change it, nor should they."
As I said, one may reserve judgment but allow benefit of the doubt, and that is pretty much what I have been saying all along.
But we are only allowed to make judgements one way
Or else we are simple-minded fools who dare not discuss that which we can’t comprehend.
by GomesSweetGomes on Jan 21, 2009 10:10 PM EST up reply actions
That is what I disagree with
Pretty much everything else you say = spot on.
I trust the Rays front office to make good decisions. However, their recent success doesn’t give them a free pass on every decision or policy they make. Keep in mind that the policy in question was formulated at a time when arb eligible players couldn’t walk into a hearing and spout off a list of legitimate personal and team accomplishments….i.e. the leverage equation may have already drastically changed. And even if it hasn’t, I think a sign of a well managed organization is to always be willing to reconsider their way of doing things.
Maybe they should change it, maybe they shouldn’t. Steadfast refusal to change policy until “something bad happens” is a classic sign of a reactionary, and I think the RFO is much smarter than that.
by GomesSweetGomes on Jan 21, 2009 10:22 PM EST up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Please read our Community Guidelines.
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
DRB Suggestion Box
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
