Red Sux rumblings

[yhova]

As the season progresses, one name to keep handy will be Cesar Izturis of the Dodgers. He's on the DL right now, but as soon as he comes off a trade could happen to bring him to Boston. He's a life time .270 guy (in three full seasons in the bigs) and has a slick glove.

And - from the "it could only happen in Boston" files: Look for another home coming once the season ends. Bronson Arroyo, because of the trade, can opt out of his contract after this season. And - he is going to. Now, follow along. This gets confusing:

Arroyo needed more innings than Boston could give him this season. He signed, against his agent's wishes, a trade friendly contract that could be voided - if he got traded. He gets traded to the Reds who slot him at the number two position. Hence - he'll start all year, might even get 30 starts this season. After the year ends he'll void his contract and get the pay day he was looking for all along...with the Red Sox. And here is the kick in the teeth for you Red's fans: it was planned this way all along. Boston gets a kid that is going to be a 35-40 home run guy in Pena, and he's under contact for another four years. The Reds get a pitcher for one season.

Too far fetched for you? It's not too out there for the Reds, who are planning on filing an official complaint with MLB this week. Food for thought.

Anywho, I'm out.

[Fishercat]

Wow. I'll rep you for the information.I am assuming it's true of course.

I don't know the rules on contracts, specifically if teams can ask to see a player's actual, written contract prior to trade. If they can't, the clause should be removed. If they can, it's at Krivsky's fault for not seeing it IF he didn't look at the contract willingly. However, I don't think this was planned completely. Bronson knows the rules, doubt the Sox would willingly risk tampering.

[Fishercat]

After some research, that's not exactly correct according to some Reds fans responses to McCoy.

Yes, a player can void out of a long-term deal (2+ years) if he had the service time. However, Bronson needs at least five full years and he has three. He's stuck til the offseason of 2008 if he plays fully, and if he hasn't warmed up to the Reds yet, he should.

[redsfan28]

Fisher, what is your source for this, because this is important to all us Reds fans. I looked in the CBA (yes, I have a copy of it) and couldn't find it.

[Wally Mo Pena]

bronson is with the reds for the full length of his contract. as fisher noted he doesn't have the service time to use that clause. Several reporters have gotten this wrong.

[CincyRedsFan30]

Yeah, it was wrong. Hal even corrected himself in his Ask Hal column from yesterday:

"While we're on the subject of rules, I had a senior moment last week when I said pitcher Bronson Arroyo can become a free agent after the season because he was traded in the midst of a long-term contract. Normally, that's correct — as long as the player has five years in the majors. Arroyo doesn't. He has about 2 1/2 years so he isn't eligible for free agency and the Reds will control his contract. And isn't that a good thing? Thanks to the many who pointed that out, including the phone call from GM Wayne Krivsky, who was hoping I hadn't heard of a new rule of which he wasn't aware. Fat chance."

[DirtyKash]

Bronson has been in the majors since 2000, how does he not have 5 years? How do they count service time, anyways?

[Bear]

DirtyKash...Selig does the counting!!