{ 2008 07 23 }

Interesting Cordero Note

On my commute home, I was listening to Nats GM Jim Bowden’s weekly appearance on 980’s The Sports Reporters. During the weekly demonstration of their lack of baseball knowledge, hosts Steve Czaban and Andy Pollin uncovered an interesting bit of news about injured RHP Chad Cordero.

When asked about the contractual status of Cordero, Bowden commented that he was still under team control but it was unlikely the Nats would tender him for the 2009 season (paraphrased).

Before anyone gets too off track (like Czaban & Pollin), here is a thumbnail of how a player’s contract is handled.

For this discussion, we are going to ignore the concept of options and focus strictly on service time and the contractual aspects. (We are also going to skip over Super 2 because it’s not germane to the point)

Once a player assumes a spot on the active roster (25-man from April to August 31 and up to 40-man in September), he begins accruing service time towards free agency. Any time spent on the active roster (or on the DL … important for Cordero [note: for those CBA nerds like me, correct me if I’m wrong about the 60-day & service time … it’s important]) counts towards this service time. From years 0 through the end of their 3rd season (ignoring Super 2), teams control the contract tendered to a player within the parameters of the Collective Bargaining Agreement (certain raises based on comparable service time, NOT necessarily performance).

Once a player reaches three years of service time and until they accrue at least six full years of service time, the contract is handled through the arbitration process. First, A club must offer contracts to players under its control by December 12. This in essence ties the player to the team for at least one more season. This must happen to prevent a player from becoming an immediate free agent (this is typically the non-tender stories you hear about).

Next, a player in this range of service time can accept the contract offer or if they are unhappy with the offer, request an arbitration hearing. Typically teams and players will continue negotiations during this period in hopes of avoiding arbitration. If no decision can be reached, the following steps happen (courtesy of Cot’s):

  • In January, the player and the club each submit a salary figure for arbitration. The parties may continue to negotiate until the case goes before a three-person panel of professional arbitrators between Feb. 1-20.
  • At the hearing, each party has one hour to argue its case and 30 minutes for rebuttal. The player is required to attend and generally represented by an agent. A club executive or attorney usually represents the club.
  • Criteria the panel may consider include the player’s contribution to the club in terms of performance and leadership, the club’s record and attendance, “special accomplishments,” the salaries of comparable players in his service-time class and, for players with less than 5 years of service, the class one year ahead of him. The parties may not refer to team finances, previous offers made during negotiations, comments from the press or salaries in other sports or occupations.
  • The panel, without opinion, awards the player a one-year, non-guaranteed contract at one salary or the other. If the player is cut before the 16th day before the season begins (March 14, 2007), he is entitled only to 30 days’ termination pay. If the player is cut during spring training but after the 16th day before the season begins (between March 15 and March 31, 2007), he is entitled only to 45 days’ termination pay.

Now that I’ve got all of that out of the way, here is the deal with Cordero. Chief will have five plus years of service time at the conclusion of the 2008 season. This means the Nationals could still “control” his contract for the 2009 season, assuming they were to tender him a contract.

This is where Bowden’s comment comes into play. By suggesting that the Nationals would not tender him a contract, the Nats would in essence make him a free agent immediately.

Why would they do this?

Primarily it is because of Cordero’s current salary of $6.2M, his uncertain health over the next season plus, and the arbitration process. By tendering him a contract, the Nationals put themselves in a position where Cordero could request arbitration. And by the rules of arbitration, the Nats could offer him no less than 80% of what they paid him in 2008 or $4.96M (for the sticklers, his 2008 contract was not part of the arbitration process). Compounding this is the fact that Cordero will have enough service time at the end of the 2009 season (6+) to become eligible for major league free agency.

That’s an awful lot of money for a player rehabbing from labrum surgery. Surgery that has a recovery time of 12-18 months, meaning Chief’s return to the field (not necessarily the majors) is somewhere between July 2009 and spring training 2010. A player who could go anywhere he wants after the 2009 season.

Given that, the Nats are rightly cautious in tendering him a contract.

What this does not mean is that Cordero’s days as a National are over.

This is the point which Czaban and Pollin failed to grasp.

What I imagine is in the works is the Nationals working with Cordero to reach some sort of equitable arrangement where they do not have to pay him $5M for a 2009 season which may not be in the cards. The Nationals are likely looking for a discounted rate for the 2009 season with a team option for 2010.  Basically a deal that will pay Cordero not to pitch in 2009 (or pitch very little) at a lower rate with the team able to recoup some performance in 2010 … at the very least.

It’s something that certainly deserves to be watched. But a point missed by the guys at WTEM.

Posted by Brian Oliver on Wednesday, July 23rd, 2008, at 5:37 pm, and filed under Washington (MLB), Players.

Follow any responses to this entry with the RSS 2.0 feed.

You can post a comment.