According to Hal McCoy in the DDN:

Q: Shouldn’t the Reds be trying to sign Bronson Arroyo to a long-term deal right now? Of course, that’s assuming he wants to come back. — Michael, Wilmington, N.C.

A: And that’s the big assumption one shouldn’t make. Arroyo left Boston kicking and screaming. Because he was traded in the midst of a long-term contract, he has the option of becoming a free agent after the season. If he continues to have a monster year the Red Sox might offer him millions and the deed to The Old Church and Kenmore Square. He hasn’t sold his new house in Boston, either.

I thought it had been determined that Arroyo didn’t have enough major league time to void his deal? If this is true, no matter how good he is this year, one year of Arroyo isn’t worth giving up Pena.

3 Responses

  1. Pinski

    The idea is to give the player some more bargaining power. It stops teams from making sign and trades. So that the Yankees can’t sign someone on the cheap and then trade the player to the D-Backs.

    A long-term deal (or in reality a mult-year deal, as the rules call it) is anything longer than one year.
    In Arroyo’s case he was traded during his 3 year deal, so if he has enough Major League time he could void the rest of his deal. However Arroyo doesn’t have enough time. He only has 3.15 years, and he needs 5.


    Also, a player with five years of service time who is traded in the middle of a multi-year contract may demand another trade prior to the start of the season following the one in which he was traded.

  2. Pinski

    Yeah, I freaked out about this the day after the trade, because I was looking for anything to bash the trade.
    I still don’t like the trade, but if Arroyo pitchers like he has for a full season I’ll warm up really quick.

  3. al

    i’m constantly amazed by how bad hal mccoy is at reporting about baseball, and how popular he is for the same reporting. I wish i could be that terrible and well thought of at my job.