I love Shawn Hill. I hope he's healthy. I hope he turns into a 20-game winner. I'm OK with the Nats giving him tons of chances. I've seen him up close when he's on and, well, wow.
But how on God's green earth does he win an arbitration case? He made 12 starts. He went 1-5. He had an earned run average of 5.83. That wins? Is it possible for any of the others to actually lose their case? I can't see how. Someone explain what about the process I'm missing here.
The Nats ought to just suck it up now, sign Olsen and Willingham for what they asked for and get a long-term deal done with Zimmerman. And then they need to go out and sign somebody other than more Reds castoffs and career farmhands and Odalis Perez.
I have four season tickets now. Gives me a right to be twice as bitchy.
5 comments:
The team offered 500k. Minimum wage is about 400k. The guy has 3 years of service time and has proven that when healthy he's one of the the best pitchers on the team. To side with the team, you have to believe that Shawn Hill is that absolute worst possible 4th year player imaginable. You just can't get much lower in salary than 500k.
It's not like he won and got 10 million. He won and didn't get the lowest salary possible.
If the team wanted him at this price they should have just non-tendered him. To tender a minimum wage contract to a player under team control is about as cheapskatey as suing the city or any of the other most outrageous things the team has done.
I think in arb cases, just like with the Type A/Type B stuff, it's based on the last 2 years.
I don't know if that's true, but if it is, so what? Hill was one of the best starting pitchers in the NL in 2007. As far as I'm concerned, he's getting shafted at 775k.
Steven, the key words to me are "when healthy." I don't question his ability. It's there. Shake your head ability.
Unfortunately, he doesn't seem to be able to stay healthy and those numbers last year were not good under any microscope.
I'd love for him to be a 20-game winner this year and get $5 million for 2010.
Steven is largely correct. Arb cases are based on platform year and overall career numbers. The Nats filed a number that would drive a low midpoint settlement and got burned. Plus in a year where recession talk touches everyone, it is a lot easier to grant a curly "W" to a low price guy than to an high salary guy.
Post a Comment