Batter's Box Interactive Magazine - Shannon Stewart and Arbitration

How can he keep us on tenterhooks like this? Two columns now since Jose Cruz became Barry Bonds's caddy in San Fran, and still Richard Griffin hasn't slammed JP for not getting something from the Giants in trade. Possibly this is a sign that Rich is starting to understand the new baseball economy, about a year later than the Blue Jays front office. Or maybe this revealing line from this column tells the story:

The reader e-mail when we lamented the fact Jose Cruz Jr. was not offered a contract ran heavily in favour of the club and against Cruz.

You just know that had to be tough to swallow.

Anyway, for the most part Rich is concentrating on the two guys headed for arbitration with the Jays, Kelvim Escobar and Shannon Stewart. As longtime Toronto baseball fans know, this has not traditionally been an organization that likes to go to the mat with its players in front of an arbitrator, and JP has shown no signs he welcomes these kinds of fights either. Indeed, Rich indicates that Escobar and the Jays are closing in on a one-year, $4 million deal, which frankly would be pretty sweet for Toronto -- it's cheap for a Proven Closer, even an overrated one, and would make Kelvim easier to deal at the deadline if he has a good first half.

But Shannon is the story here. He and the team are $2 million apart in their opinion of what he should earn this year, and that really is a substantial divide to cross. Rich, as usual, does his best to paint the Jays in a bad light, arguing that Torii Hunter -- a year younger than Stewart -- recently received a four-year deal from the Twins that raised his annual salary from $2.2 million a year to $8 million per. Nice implied logic there, but it overlooks the fact that Hunter is a centrefielder and a spectacular one at that, while Shannon, game as he may be, is a mediocre left fielder with a popcorn arm.

More significantly, it overlooks the fact that perhaps unlike Terry Ryan, JP has his eye firmly fixed on the future. No organization has the outfield prospects Minnesota can boast: Michael Cuddyer, Michael Restovitch, Alex Romero and Lew Ford, to name four, and perhaps Justin Morneau in an emergency. The two Michaels are considered among the premier bats in the minors, while Romero projects as a five-tool centrefielder. Under those circumstances, do you sign a guy to a four-year, $32-million deal whose lifetime OBP is .315 and whose last two "breakout" seasons have been accompanied by a 64/243 BB/K ratio? Well, I wouldn't, but I'm just a caveman.

Rich allows that Gabe Gross and J-F Griffin should be ready or close to ready to take over left field if and when Shannon moves on to natural-grass pastures after 2004. And he should know that there's very little chance of striking a reasonable deal with Stewart's agent, Jeff "I engineered the Mondesi-Green trade" Moorad, who doubtless wants his client to test the market after this season regardless of how the hearing goes. But you get the feeling that Rich sees this development as he sees most others in the Ricciardi regime: another nail in the coffin of the Blue Jay Way, another legacy of the past administration tossed aside.

Well, as Monty Burns would say, hard cheese: Shannon is a fine hitter better suited for DH, but that's not a role he's willing to play in Toronto. He's not terribly durable, he's lost a step or two through injury and tentativeness, and he's probably plateaued offensively. There are cheaper alternatives with higher upsides coming through the system. I think it' will soon be time to say goodbye, and the forthcoming arbitration hearing -- which, for my money, the Jays will win -- is the start of a breakup that will eventually serve both sides better.

Posted by Jordan on Thursday, January 30 2003 @ 10:27 AM EST.

Shannon Stewart and Arbitration | 26 comments | Create New Account

The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.

Coach - Thursday, January 30 2003 @ 10:41 AM EST (#13068) #

One of the things that's most different for real GMs and their staffs from anything "we" imagine while commenting from the sidelines and/or building our Roto empires is dealing with the player's agent, as much a part of the package as his personality or stats. Jeff Moorad, who represents Stewart, may be one of the people most affected by the dramatic shrinking of the market this winter, and from everything I've heard about the man, that wouldn't sit too well with him. Because Moorad can be stubborn and is no doubt already resentful, I agree with Griffin that this case will face the arbitrator, and I've already predicted a Jays' "win." The quote from the assistant GM seems to confirm the gulf between the sides:

"We're obviously seeing a different player," (Tim) McCleary said of Stewart. "We're not even on the same page at this point."

There's a downside to the "victory" I'm presuming. Shannon might pout -- that's not unprecedented -- and he'll be hard to trade with just a one-year deal attached and a recent history of an arbitration battle. More amicable discussions with Escobar and a more reasonable contract will make him easier to trade, but I've always contended that both players' time in Toronto is running out. If Stewart just Cruz-es out the door next winter for no return, people like Griffin may get upset, but it's the new economic facts of life. J.P. will have many options to replace him from among the wealth of OF prospects in the system, and other teams' non-tendered stars.

I'm sure a lot of that reader e-mail Rich got, which obviously took the edge off the Cruz rant we were anticipating, came from people who visit this site; it's the first evidence of the true power of Batter's Box.

_Rich Charred-Gr - Thursday, January 30 2003 @ 12:25 PM EST (#13069) #

As you already probably guessed, I intentionally wrote "John Ford-Grifffin" and not "John-Ford Griffin" (and I'm, no doubt, the only baseball "writer" still making the "mistake") . It's hard to acknowledge the budding stardom of a new Griffin while this Griffin's a complete failure!

_R Billie - Thursday, January 30 2003 @ 12:54 PM EST (#13070) #

At the Jays' official site there's a clip of Ricciardi talking to MLB Radio. Apparently they are negotiating but it seems likely that a hearing will occur; they do like Stewart though. There's a number of other interesting tidbits in the clip also.

_Matthew Elmslie - Thursday, January 30 2003 @ 01:13 PM EST (#13071) #

Am I the only one getting a little uncomfortable with the constant sniping at Griffin around here?

I mean, sure, he seems to have some personal beef with the Jays and/or Ricciardi, and he's not the most knowledgeable baseball guy anyway. Stipulated.

But shouldn't it be beneath us to go looking for excuses to criticize him? I read today's column, and there's nothing all that bad in it. Sure, he's got an attitude, but 'Griffin Sour On Jays' is no more news than is 'Dog Bites Man'.

If we absolutely have to talk about the guy, we can at least pick our spots - perhaps only when he writes something so unfair that we can't ignore it in good conscience, or when he writes something good.

(Although I do wonder about Griffin's claim that 2K2 was Stewart's best year - what about the year he popped 20 homers? That was pretty good.)

--

About Shannon Stewart. I think it's possible that his type of player - high average, some speed, some extra-base power - is a little undervalued by the most simplistic sabrethink. I'm thinking of several things:

1. the idea that a walks-and-homers offense may tend towards streakiness
2. the possibility that a walks-and-homers offense is great over the long haul, but less effective against a pitching staff with good control and who can keep the ball in the yard (i.e. in a playoff series)
3. the general idea that it's nice to have more than one string to your bow

I don't see any evidence that the Jays are falling into the Lumber Region; not with guys like Hudson (and perhaps even Catalanotto) around. So I'm not really worried. I did think it was worth bringing up, though. What's everyone else think?

_Justin Sayin - Thursday, January 30 2003 @ 01:58 PM EST (#13072) #

A high OBP=high runs scored offence, Or a walk/homer offense may tend toward streakiness? Doesn't batting AVG fluctuate aswell? What's the consistent? I know you're not suggesting it's stolen bases?

What strings do you mean? Even if they were the Lumber Region, all the Jays sluggers had healthy batting AVG's, so it's not exactly all walk n' trot.

Craig B - Thursday, January 30 2003 @ 02:17 PM EST (#13073) #

Matthew,

Thanks for saying what needs to be said. Griffin's beneath contempt, and we should remember this. It's not worth the trouble to talk about him.

_Steve Z - Thursday, January 30 2003 @ 02:30 PM EST (#13074) #

Brief Hijack:
Perhaps I misread something, but today's BP: Breaking Balls refers to Dustin McGowan as BA's #1 pitching prospect (with the caveat that "there is no such thing as a pitching prospect"). When does BA's official (toolsy) list come out?

_Matthew Elmslie - Thursday, January 30 2003 @ 02:37 PM EST (#13075) #

Justin: I think about it like this. True, home runs are the most effective way of scoring runs. But what's a normal number of home runs per game? Around one, I think, if you compare yearly totals to 162 games. So ordinary variation will have a team hitting several home runs in some games and none at all in others. If you're relying on home runs as your main weapon, that means you're out of luck in quite a few games.

Also, the lesson of DIPS is that the identity of the pitcher has much more of an effect on the rates of home runs and walks than on the rate of non-homer hits. So a pitcher who is particularly good at avoiding homers and walks has no special invulnerability to singles, doubles and triples.

All of which suggests to me that the ability to hit for a decent average is one worth having. The Angels demonstrated its value all last year.

I think the most consistent type of offense is a broad-based offense. Ideally you'd want your hitters to be good at everything - hitting for average, hitting for power, walking, stealing bases, taking a judicious extra base every now and then, and, yes, even bunting. It can all come in handy. Reaching base and hitting for power are highest on the list, but they're not the only things on the list.

In any case, a high OBP that was composed of a high batting average plus a few walks is more valuable than one composed of a lower average and more walks, simply because a walk is as good as a single only when there's nobody on base.

I don't claim that the Jays were, are, or are going to be bad in this area; I was just started off down this train of thought by the discussion of Stewart's value, and I think it's a point worth considering.

Dave Till - Thursday, January 30 2003 @ 03:13 PM EST (#13076) #

Matthew: good points. I, for one, pledge not to write any more about whats-his-name unless he says something particularly remarkable.

I've always liked Shannon Stewart. He doesn't complain, he seems to like it in Toronto, and he quietly does his job despite being constantly the centre of trade rumours. I can see letting Stewart walk when he becomes a free agent, as by then some or all of The Next Wave Of Overwhelming Young Phenoms (Gross, Werth, the other Griffin) will be ready. But I don't want the Jays to get rid of Stewart until they have either (a) a better player available to replace him, or (b) a player of equivalent quality who is cheaper. The Jays don't have either (a) or (b) yet.

_dp - Thursday, January 30 2003 @ 03:29 PM EST (#13077) #

Dave-
I'll echo your praise of Stewart. He's someone I'd really like to see stay with the team, though I know he won't once the younger guys start coming up. I still think he has a big leap forward in his future- a .900 OPS season at some point- and I'd like to see him have it as a Jay. It would be cool if they let him run a bit more this year providing he can keep the SB% high.

But as someone who suffered through the bad years and always got unfairly slagged in the media, it would be nice to see Stewart reap some reward, and not get dumped before the team enters its golden age.

Coach - Thursday, January 30 2003 @ 03:33 PM EST (#13078) #

Matthew, I just talked to a friend who suggested we "throw Griffin a bone" every now and then. I thought we had been; I agree with Rich on the spectre of collusion, the shameful management of the Expos, and many other topics. It upsets me when he falls into the lazy habit (acquired for understandable reasons during the Dr. Evil regime) of trashing the front office, and each of those pieces sparks "here we go again" frustration. Today's acknowledgement of reading his e-mails coincides with another reasonable column, so who knows? Maybe he's stumbled across this site and is rethinking some opinions. BB gets a lot of correspondence off-board now, and the anti-Griffin theme is a popular subject. But if he keeps writing informative stuff and lays off the undeserved venom, I'll link to his columns with praise instead of criticism.

You're right; an offence with nothing else but walks and HR is unreliable, and easier for a great pitcher to shut down. But there are no worries about the Jays being one-dimensional; speed isn't just about steals. Two thirds of the lineup -- Hinske, Wells, Stewart, Woodward, O-Dog and F-Cat -- can pressure a defence by going first-to-third, or scoring from second on flares. They also produce plenty of doubles and triples, which can clear those walks off the bases just as well as a Phelps or Delgado blast.

_Jonny German - Thursday, January 30 2003 @ 05:32 PM EST (#13079) #

Hey if Rob Neyer can serve up a stinker, Griffin can serve up a good one every now and then, right? I'd say today's is an average hash of journalist rhetoric, with the one very bone-headed statement which Matt mentioned. 2002 as Stewart's best year? How anyone can think it was better than 2000 or 2001, even someone who has no interest in sabremetrics, is beyond me.

A couple of years ago, it seemed to me that Peter Gammons never wrote anything positive about the Jays or Expos. I wrote him an email to that effect, asking him what he had against Canada. Now I know it sounds pretty implausible that Old Pete would read my email, let alone take it to heart, but I swear he changed... even before the ascent of JP.

_DS - Thursday, January 30 2003 @ 06:03 PM EST (#13080) #

I think Neyer's worst column was the one last year where he compared Tampa's and Toronto's offense and said Toronto was only marginally better. His take on Biggio is really not far off. Why should Houston give him an extension? They have no reason to unless he takes a big pay cut. He's not the player he used to be, and being a mid-market team they have to use their resources effectly as opposed to fulfilling a team's nostaglia quotient.

_Jonny German - Thursday, January 30 2003 @ 06:46 PM EST (#13081) #

I'd forgotten about that Tampa - Toronto nonsense, you're right on on that one. My complaint with this one wasn't the main point, but some of the ways he made the point... He pulled various stunts that make us dislike guys like RGriff. Apparently a lot of people agreed with me since he wrote another column to respond to the negative email.

Pokey Reese as a "perfectly good replacement" for Barry Larkin?!? Pokey Reese has had one respectable season. Otherwise he's a marginal player who somehow got hyped up WAY over his head.

He emphasizes Biggio's 2000 season more than his 2001 season. Let me do a quick check... yup, it's still the more recent history that matters more in predicting the future.

Then there's the stats he had in the little chart on the side... Games, Runs, Stolen Bases, RBIs, Batting average. And this is the guy who first got me thinking about sabremetrics?

Gitz - Thursday, January 30 2003 @ 07:24 PM EST (#13082) #

Since the A's are so sabermetric, in theory, and since I have seen their rise from McGwire's dust, I can verify Matt's theory: their offense is extremely streaky. They seem to either win 15-3 or 3-2. They don't have a lot of 7-5 or 5-4 games.

As for Griffin, it seems that some of the criticism directed at him -- and I am guilty of this with Gammons -- is latent envy. The problem with the �information age� is that it has given the Average Person the idea they can say �it� better than the guys getting paid to say it. The power of the printed word is staggering, second in power to that of the images provided by TV and the movies. For someone to see their name and ideas -- especially their name -- �in print,� it is extremely flattering and ego-boosting, even if that forum is something as humble as a blog.

Now I�m not saying the Average Person is wrong; in many cases, they are probably right. And I�m not saying that all of the people want Griffin�s job (they probably don�t -- journalists don�t get paid much, for one thing). But there seems to be this assumption that anyone can write, or at least write about sports. I know people who are 10 times the writer I am, but they don't have the patience, and they don't have the diligence to try it. In Griffin's defense, it is a tremendous amount of effort coming up with original material. Blogs and other Internet forums are fun, but how much different is it? Even the sabermetric stuff is no longer alternative, in the same way that a band like the Foo Fighters is no longer alternative, if it ever was.

Try writing 750 words five times a week, staying topical and fresh, attempting to be different, and, yes, trying to be entertaining. That's what sports is, and, in a broader sense, that's what writing about it is. Fortunately, the bozos running the games and playing in them provide plenty of material, but it still is difficult, and one of the ways to get read is to be controversial and make off-the-cuff statements like Kris Benson winning the Cy Young award in his second full season playing in the same league as Randy Johnson, Curt Schilling, Greg Maddux, Kevin Brown, et al. (Gammons did this two years ago.) And in the modern media climate, that�s what sells newspapers: controversial and bold statements. Mick pointed this out to me last year when I went off on Gammons, and Mick is right. His job is not to make us say, "What a great idea; Kris Benson as Cy Young!" His job is to make us say, "Kris Benson, Cy Young? What an idiot! I need to have my friend read this ..." Gammons is very good at his job, and, apparently, so is Griffin.

Rest assured, Stark and Neyer and Gizzi and Doherty and most published writers would be thrilled if they saw their names mentioned as much as we talk about Griffin, good or bad.

_Justin Sayin - Thursday, January 30 2003 @ 08:00 PM EST (#13083) #

The Anaheim Angels and their "high batting AVG" offense:

Let's remind ourselves here, the Angels were the fourth place team(wildcard) that made the playoffs, and then won the World Series. However, the offense they produced to get to the playoffs was not the same offense they won the World Series with.

"During the regular season, the Angels hit a home run every 37.4 at-bats and slugged .433. In the playoffs, they jacked a ball every 23.5 at-bats and slugged .512. Their October offense was about power, not "small ball," even though they displayed the same aggressiveness at the plate and on the bases that characterized their regular season. "
--Joe Sheehan's News Letter, "Singles in Heaven" now available to all at Baseball Prospectus archives

http://premium.baseballprospectus.com/preview/preview_sheehan1.html

And on the Robbie Neyer Jays/Rays column of May 8/'02, what's the big deal? Anytime you're compared to the Devil Rays sure that's not good, but remember who the Jays were fielding for comparisons: Homer Bush, Darrin Fletcher, Raul Mondesi. Vernon Wells didn't get a glowing endorsement, but until last year he had been in "neutral for three years". Two atleast. Interestingly he gave Jose Cruz a favorable review, though he'd soon underperform --in most peoples opinions.

That's four players of a starting unit of nine, that either retired, were given away, or were released. And their Win/Lose record wasn't all that great either at the time.

_Geoff North - Thursday, January 30 2003 @ 08:30 PM EST (#13084) #

Shannon Stewart is in that category of player that is probably going to really feel the pinch in the "new" economy, especially if it continues into the seasons to come. He is a very, very good baseball player. Some would say excellent. However, he is not a superstar by any means - he hasn't even been an allstar, though he could certainly be the allstar selection on at least half a dozen of the bottom barrel teams. He is extremely consistent and moderately durable, and he plays mediocre defense. He is the kind of player that would be an asset to practically any team, but would not be the cornerstone of any championship calibre team. In short, he isn't like Thome or Glavine - a player who could conceivably make a huge impact on a team. He's probably more like a Ray Durham - a valuable piece, only at a less demanding position.

How much would Shannon Stewart be signed for today, if he was a free agent? Certainly not 7.5 million, or whatever he's asked for in arbitration. That's John Olerud territory, and there's no doubt that Olerud is a better hitter than Stewart. I'd guess that he's sign in the vicinity of 4 million in this offseason if he was a free agent.

_Justin Sayin - Thursday, January 30 2003 @ 09:22 PM EST (#13085) #

It's questionable that Olerud could/would be used as a comparison in arbitration or in contract negotiations. His true market place value isn't known because he's taken "hometown discounts" to stay in Seattle.

There may be a 'market correction' going on presently with the contracts that are being offered to platoon type lefty firstbase/DH types, and average/past their prime starting pitchers, but the 'premiere' free agents (Thome, Floyd, Glavine, etc) got plush security.

If you look to next years free agent crop, and look at outfielders, the four 'biggest' names are: Vlad Guerrero, Mike Cameron, Shannon Stewart, and Jose Cruz. If you're a team looking for a proven outfielder (example, the Yankees looking for a mate for Williams, & Matsui) and you don't get Vlad...Shannon Stewart's stats may not compare to that of someone earning 6,7,8 million (ie. Johnny Damon 4yrs/31 mil), but he'll be in a group of non-pitchers, who will be the top tier free agents for '04.

Someone's gonna pay.

_R Billie - Friday, January 31 2003 @ 01:19 AM EST (#13086) #

I caught Jeff Moorad (Stewart's agent) on the way home from work on the FAN. He actually mentioned *Kevin Millwood* of all people as a comparison for someone who had similar service time to Stewart and ended up settling for $9.9 million...and therefore Stewart's request of $7.5 million wasn't unreasonable.

Setting aside that I think Phillie overpaid for Millwood (considering he has as many ordinary years as good ones), how is it possible to compare a 17 game winning starting pitcher to a good but not great outfielder? Does that have any hope of holding up in arbitration? Can comparisons be made regardless of position and role?

_dp - Friday, January 31 2003 @ 04:55 AM EST (#13087) #

To repeat, Stewart is one of those guys I like aesthetically, regardless of his "sabermetric" value or salary. Baseball should be fun, and Stewart is a fun guy to watch hit. I saw him get 3 hits, almost precisely the same, in Baltimore in September, and it was very typical of Stewart- swinging the bat, and putting himself on base, doing what he oculd with the pitch. Too bad he couldn't have stayed in CF- he'd be one of the league's best.

Gitz - Friday, January 31 2003 @ 05:09 AM EST (#13088) #

Up late again ...

I've always liked Stewart, too. But I bet even someone like, say, Coach, has a better arm than Shannon ...

Coach - Friday, January 31 2003 @ 08:23 AM EST (#13089) #

Gitz has an outdated scouting report. I can still throw BP (picture Jeff Reardon's head on Rich Garces' body) though not hard enough to do the kids much good. Accuracy isn't a problem, but my fastball's dropped to the mid-80's and my curve is about 75 -- that's in kilometres per hour. But back in the day...

dp -- Stewart would be a good fantasy CF, but that's about it. In the four directions he's required to cover in LF, he's pretty good laterally, not as bad as some going back -- but not great -- and really poor coming in. No statistical measurement of his arm can adequately reflect how often he chooses to not even attempt a throw that anyone else would make. Runners automatically take the extra base, and Shannon just tosses it in to the SS. So responsibility for the extra acreage of CF is more than a fantasy; it was always a pipe dream, based on his wheels. Even $5.5 MM is too much to pay a guy who goes from asset to liability every half-inning. If he wins in arbitration, he's not quite Loaiza-overpaid, but it will be ridiculous. If Moorad won't compromise and they lose, which seems inevitable, I hope Shannon realizes who's to blame and takes it like a pro.

When Stewart departs (next spring) and Escobar is traded (as soon as someone wants him) that will leave Delgado (FA after '04) and Halladay (after '05, but likely to get an extension) as the only regulars left from the roster J.P. inherited. Not sure where Justin Sayin' got his FA list for next winter, but Carlos Beltran and Garret Anderson quickly come to mind as OF omissions, and the trend for teams to non-tender expensive stars should continue. Also, the bonanza of pitching talent coming up for grabs (Schilling, Pedro, Lowe, Wood, Morris, Milton, among other #1 and #2 types) should make the available OF more affordable. There will be excellent FA options for the Jays to replace Stewart with, if the homegrown kids aren't ready.

_Justin Sayin - Friday, January 31 2003 @ 12:05 PM EST (#13090) #

Nah, I didn't do a lot of research on the FA's, I just glanced at a Petey Gammons list of a month back.

Actually, according to his list, Anderson's a free agent at the end of '04, as is Carlos Beltran - that I knew anyway, it's in the Kansas City papers every other day.

I think it still rings true that the higher end free agent talents will continue to get healthy contract offers in '03 and beyond. There may not be the 9,10,11... million per year deals in the future, but over the life of the contracts there will be some big deals.

Dave Till - Friday, January 31 2003 @ 01:35 PM EST (#13091) #

Gitz: for my part, the problem I have with certain sportswriters has nothing to do with the quality of their writing, or whether or not I envy them their jobs. I wouldn't want to be a sportswriter - it's hard to write under deadline, and I suspect that interviewing baseball players isn't always fun, to put it mildly. And mediocre writing doesn't bother me (which is probably just as well in my case :-)).

My complaint about certain writers is that their cynicism and dislike of the game may adversely affect the team that I follow. If R. Grumpy Sportswriter's daily column is constantly stating that the Jays are awful and that a trip to the SkyDome is about as enjoyable as a series of root canal appointments, the general public is probably less likely to think of baseball as a fun night out.

Of course, there have been times when a game at the Dome has been about as much fun as a day of dental pain. The games involving the non-Halladay portion of last spring's rotation were usually effectively over by the top of the second inning. (78 pitches, eight hits, four walks, seven earned runs - and then they'd bring in Scott Cassidy...) But I can't help but think that some of our local grumpmeisters enjoy baseball less than even a casual fan would.

Coach - Friday, January 31 2003 @ 03:00 PM EST (#13092) #

My bad, Justin. You are right, of course. The guys I mentioned are FA after the 2004 season, not before it. Still, there will be lots of available talent if teams continue the practice of non-tendering overpriced players, and I don't see why they wouldn't. After a quick check of the MLB Contacts site (linked on our sidebar) I'd have to say Gary Sheffield and Ichiro will attract some interest if you can't afford Vlad. A couple of other OF who will be on the market, unless they sign an extension this year, are the Gonzalez twins, Luis and Juan. The Dodgers must pay Brian Jordan $10 MM to play or a $2.5 MM buyout. Carlos Lee, Carl Everett, Gabe Kapler, Raul Mondesi and Mark McLemore will be FA, and that's not counting the arbitration-eligible guys who just get turned loose. In this economy, Stewart should expect a 2004 pay cut.

_Justin Sayin - Friday, January 31 2003 @ 06:04 PM EST (#13093) #

Were not quite yet to a situation where "we'll agree to disagree"... The non-tender situations -- that I didn't think of in earlier posts. That'll have some effect on the market place, definitely. But, in thinking back, a lot of the 'free agent frenzy' happens before the non-tenders break. Teams looking for that "special guy" (the Marlins) or "final piece" to add to their pretend contender usually don't risk waiting for some of the bargains and some guys will reap the benefit of the free market place biddings.

So still, even when potential guys like a Carlos Lee or Carl Everett, etc. etc. could/will become available, i've still got to stick with what's happened this '02 free agent offseason: The cream at the top of the free agent pool will still get good deals.

Shannon Stewart and Arbitration | 26 comments | Create New Account

The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.