Justin Verlander's Arbitration Hearing Looms

by Ian Casselberry on Feb 2, 2009 2:00 PM EST in News Comment 14 comments

Could the Detroit Tigers have their first arbitration hearing with a player since Dave Dombrowski took over as the team's general manager?

The Tigers weren't able to agree on a contract with Justin Verlander before hearings were set to begin as of February 1. And here we are: February 2, and still no agreement between the two sides.

As Tom Gage points out on his blog, all that's known is that a hearing is set to take place between now and February 20. Though the exact date has been scheduled, it hasn't been revealed because the arbitrators aren't supposed to know in advance whose case they'll be hearing. With pitchers reporting to Spring Training before position players, however, it's likely that Verlander's hearing is on the earlier side of the schedule.

Just to refresh your memory, Verlander is asking for $4.15 million, while the Tigers countered with a $3.2 million offer. A contract in the $3.75 million range seems like a reasonable settlement, but even if an arbitration hearing were to take place and Verlander won the ruling, that's a pretty good deal for the Tigers in this current market.

If a hearing is to be avoided, however, this would seem to be the week for an agreement to be reached. Stay tuned.

UPDATE (5 p.m.): The Freep's Jon Paul Morosi reports that Verlander's arbitration hearing is scheduled for February 13.

0 recs | Comment 14 comments | Share

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Can't see this

As much as I like JV, I can’t imagine he’d have a leg to stand on here.

by imark on Feb 2, 2009 2:27 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

I’m really surprised this hasn’t been settled yet. $400,000 doesn’t sound like that much money in baseball terms and with Cole Hamels’s contract as a model a three year deal worth $18 million seems pretty fair.

If Cole Hamels is worth $4.35 million in 2009 I can see where Verlander is worth $4.15m. Though I can also see why The Tigers think he’s worth less.

by MacRae on Feb 2, 2009 3:43 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

How about Zack Greinke as a comp?

After signing his new contract, he’ll earn $3.75 million in 2009. (He was seeking $4.4 million in arbitration, $1 million more than the Royals’ figure.)

Bless You Boys

by Ian Casselberry on Feb 2, 2009 5:34 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

THATS where you got that number…

I can see where JV thinks he’s worth more than that what with the All-Star appearance, ROY, playoff IPs and Cy Young votes (and if you include playoff IPs he’s only pitched about 30 fewer innings) but Greinke’s contract further illustrates the point that this should be a fairly easy deal to hammer out.

In theory he’s worth less than $4.35 million but slightly more than $3.75 million (although way more than $3.2 million which I assume is an issue). Seems to me that a fair deal for him would be right at or just below $4 mil and the more I think about it the more Verlander’s figure seems right.

If they do in fact follow the Geinke model than Verlander would likely settle for less than he asked for (Geinke asked for $4.4 million) as long as the contract is heavily backloaded (Geinke gets $13.5 million in the contracts final two years). Those last two years seem a bit excessive to me and I wonder if DD and JV are struggling on that.

by MacRae on Feb 2, 2009 10:04 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Those last two years do seem to have a “Royals tax” on them.

Bless You Boys

by Ian Casselberry on Feb 3, 2009 7:18 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I tought the same thing, though it is interesting when hearing that the Greinke contract was modeled after Bonderman’s. He’ll make $12.5m in ’09 and ’10.

by MacRae on Feb 3, 2009 10:09 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Verlander

Let me see if I’m understanding this correctly…

2006 AL Rookie of Year

Named to 2007 AL All-Star team

First Tigers pitcher since Denny McLain to lead A-L in winning percentage, going 18-6 in 2007.

And Justin Verlander Is asking for ONLY $4.15 million and the Tigers are balking?

What were they paying Bonderman, Robertson and Willis again???

Bonderman: $8.5 million in 2008

Robertson: $4.25 million in 2008 (thought it was higher)

Willis: $7 million in 2008

Those three guys combined for TEN WINS last season… let that sink in for a second. $19.75 million for three guys last year who combined for ten wins.

Meanwhile, Verlander (in a horrible year no doubt) won eleven games last season while making $1.13 million. And instead of asking for the kind of money Bonderman and Willis are making, he is asking for less than half of what Jeremy is getting.

And the Tigers are saying no.

Anyone else see something wrong with this picture??

I am appalled to say the least…

by Todd1005fm on Feb 3, 2009 8:53 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

I’d rather not see DD model future contracts on mistakes of the past, but I see your point. I think The Tigers lowballed him at $3.2 million but I’m still not willing to shell out $8 million after just three seasons no matter how good they were. The Tigers have to pay for what he will do, not what he has done.

And as a sidenote Bonderman’s first contract year was worth $4.5 million which is very much in the neighborhood of the figures we’re talking about.

by MacRae on Feb 3, 2009 10:08 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

MacRae

Fair points…

Lowball at $3.2 million is an understatement and I’m not saying the Tigers SHOULD have shelled out $8 million for Verlander. Personally, I would say somewhere between $5 and $6 million would have been fair.

You say the Tigers have to pay for what he will do… you don’t think he’ll do more than Bonderman, Robertson or Willis? I just find it amazing those three guys were all rewarded for past results, but not Verlander. Utterly amazing.

Good point also about Bonderman, but that $4.5 million is/was still more than what Verlander was asking for this season. When is the last time Bonderman won 18 games in a season? His best year was 14 wins and he hasn’t come close to that since.

As a sidenote, I’m glad the Tigers and Verlander came to an agreement, though if I’m Verlander and if I go out and have a great season (18-20 wins), I might have to think twice about re-signing with the Tigers for 2010.

by Todd1005fm on Feb 4, 2009 6:30 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

One reason I'm leery about resigning Polly

Is that they are going to have to pony up for Verlander sooner or later. Now might not be a bad time to buy out his arbitration years, seeing as he’s coming off of a down season. They might be able to get him a little cheaper, especially seeing as he’s still a fair ways away from free agency. Then again, signing pitchers coming off of down seasons (I’m looking at you DTrain) has bitten the Tigers before…

by ThaWalrus9 on Feb 3, 2009 10:51 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

ThaWalrus

Couldn’t agree more… I’m guessing this whole Verlander issue is partly due to the fact the Tigers HAVE been burned by Willis, Robertson and, to a lesser degree, Bonderman. So what happens if Verlander tears it up in 2009? How much will the Tigers have to offer him to stay in Detroit for 2010 and beyond?

Should have offered him 3 years $15 million and that would have been a steal, not to mention both sides would have been happy.

by Todd1005fm on Feb 4, 2009 6:32 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

That's why they are "arbitration" years

He can’t ask for the moon, quite yet….that will come. If he shows up this year, they will book him for 5 years or something of the sort.

by Zappatista on Feb 3, 2009 10:57 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

signed

3.675 million, good work DD
http://www.fannation.com/si_blogs/hot_stove/posts/47024-verlander-signs-3675-deal-with-tigers

by tigerfaninChicago on Feb 3, 2009 4:08 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Zappatista

But Verlander didn’t ask for the moon and I’m not saying he should have. If the Tigers can pay Dontrelle Willis $7 million a year to go 0-2 with an ERA over nine, I don’t see why they couldn’t just come out and give Verlander what he was asking for ($4.15 million).

Glad to see this get done, but I’ll be interested to see what happens a year from now, especially if Verlander is lights out this season.

by Todd1005fm on Feb 4, 2009 6:34 AM EST reply actions 0 recs