Sox and Bronson Arroyo Close on Deal

by Randy Booth on Jan 19, 2006 11:05 AM EST in News

According to CBS4 Boston, the Red Sox and Bronson Arroyo are close to signing a deal that would be worth $11 or $12 million over three years. Also reported to be included is a "gentleman's agreement," meaning the Sox wouldn't trade him this season.

So instead of the $4.2 million the Red Sox refused to give Arroyo, they'll probably be giving him $4 million per year. Not much of a difference in money, but apparently enough to notch the deal.

This "gentleman's agreement" is a little disappointing to me, however. I'm a fan of Arroyo's, but if he's standing between us and Seattle CF Jeremy Reed, then trading him, in my opinion, would be the thing to do. But at this point it looks like that won't be able to get down.

Tweet Comment 12 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

He's taking a discount...

because he loves boston, loves the city and the fans and wants to finish his career here. They OUGHT to reward him for this. It's not every day that a player takes less than he would get on the market to stay...basically giving them a discount. Thumbs up Bronson! That is a class move. And, they should not move him for this reason alone.

by cblesz @ Over the Monster on Jan 19, 2006 3:57 PM EST reply actions

I've Heard That Song Before

"because he loves boston, loves the city and the fans and wants to finish his career here. They OUGHT to reward him for this."

Meet Johnny Damon. And Pedro Martinez.

Not to bust your chops, I don't mean to. I think its a nice deal for both sides. I just wouldn't be so fast to declare him "untradeable".

by Matt Rivers on Jan 19, 2006 4:00 PM EST reply actions

But...

Isn't the difference between them, Matt, that Pedro and Johnny talked about wanting to stay in Boston while Bronson ACTUALLY SIGNED a contract for less money than he might have gotten elsewhere?

by Devine @ Over the Monster on Jan 19, 2006 4:59 PM EST up reply actions

Of Course

That's the difference. I'm only poking fun at the idea itself, not at the poster and/or player involved.

by Matt Rivers on Jan 19, 2006 6:42 PM EST up reply actions

Bronson's not them

I think Bronson is sincere about wanting to stay in Boston. Unfortunately, signing a below-market contract is like hanging a "trade-bait" sign around his neck. I hope they treat you right Bronson. Much <3

"You know you're having a bad day when the fifth inning rolls around and they drag the warning track." - Mike Flanagan, Baltimore Orioles pitcher, 1992.

by SoxDevil on Jan 20, 2006 9:06 AM EST up reply actions

Exactly...

That IS what I meant. Pedro and especially Damon both said that. Then, they did not take a discount AND took off for more money. Arroyo talked about it, then gave the discount AND followed through by signing for less. That is exactly what I meant.

by cblesz @ Over the Monster on Jan 19, 2006 5:20 PM EST reply actions

Arroyo vs. Byrd

I have concerns about Arroyo this year, due to his decline in K's and focus issues. But then I think about Paul Byrd getting 7 million a year to be the fourth or fifth guy for Cleveland, and this seems like a very good contract.
Byrd's pretty good, don't get me wrong. He has a lot of brains on the mound, but I'd say Arroyo has better stuff, and still might grow brains.

by alfredoz on Jan 19, 2006 5:21 PM EST reply actions

Doesn't Make Sense

I know the Sox oppose no-trade clauses, but why is Arroyo taking a discount without something more than a "gentleman's agreement"? The Sox could turn right around and trade him, especially given that his "low" salary makes him more tradeable. Seriously, if it were me, that's the only way I'd agree to a below market deal -- if I'm showing you the love, you gotta do the same; otherwise, it's biz as usual.

by argo0 on Jan 19, 2006 6:42 PM EST reply actions

i agree

I think agents should use more trade stipulation language in their clients contracts. For example, Mark Blout of the Celtics gets a 15% raise if hes traded, giving him another 5 mil. Something like that would help keep players for cheaper, and prevent players from being traded on whims.

by forage @ Over the Monster on Jan 19, 2006 8:20 PM EST up reply actions

Do The Right Thing

I consider myself a pretty hardcore stathead with a fondness for players but largely resigned to watching my favorites grow old, decline, become free agents, get hurt and never thrill me again, etc, etc. I cried no tears when Pedro left, and fewer when Damon left.

But what Arroyo has done is take 'I value playing for Boston' and put his salary where his mouth is. He took a pay cut to play for Boston, and even I cannot say that it's just and right to turn around and trade him and his favorable contract. He's entirely likely to be worth every penny of his contract over the next three years (and of how many late-arbitration or FA starting pitchers can that be said of?).

I don't say this often, but I hope the Sox's FO does the right thing and keeps Arroyo.

by NinetyNineTails on Jan 20, 2006 4:19 AM EST up reply actions

But

But we live in a cynical and fallen world, so I'm very surprised that Arroyo didn't get a no-trade. No matter how much Boston's FO is (rightly) opposed to them, for the kind of discount they're getting, they can make an exception.

by NinetyNineTails on Jan 20, 2006 4:20 AM EST up reply actions

The Blount Clause

I like the idea of a player signing a discounted contract for their home/favorite team, and getting a % raise if traded to make it a normal contract. It's fair to both sides. But for all we know maybe that's in the contract already.

I've said it before, but Arroyo doesn't get enough respect from most knowledgeable fans and experts. While his stuff isn't spectacular, he's consistantly good and has never been on the DL.

"You know you're having a bad day when the fifth inning rolls around and they drag the warning track." - Mike Flanagan, Baltimore Orioles pitcher, 1992.

by SoxDevil on Jan 20, 2006 9:12 AM EST up reply actions