Add new comment

I disagree with notion that teams offer arbitration w/o a clue as to what the answer is going to be.  Based on my observations, I think that this not only happens routinely, but that like so many aspects of the whole MLB life cycle - everyone is in on the inanity of it all.
Exactly how far the process goes in the vincinity of collusion?  (shrug)
In point of fact, it could be Boras himself who suggests that the club offer arb, just so he can turn it down.  If Beltre's value (given his '09 - AND the current market), is only 10.7 million, (based on Fangraphs), but '09 looks like a depressed market.  What can Boras do to potentially push up Beltre's "perceived" value?  Well, getting his current club to offer arb helps - creating one team who ALREADY has shown whatever the minimum salary reduction allowable is for the player. 
As a type B, it also 'gives' something to Seattle (goodwill) which actually costs Boras nothing.  (More complicated for situations where the signing team loses a pick - but still possible).
The question here is not "did both parties know the answer to the arb question before it was officially filed?"  The real question is did they AGREE to this arrangement? 
You could have Boras saying, "No, we won't accept arb."  Then turn around and after it is offered, renege and enter the arb process.  But, that's a card you get to play only once, after which nobody will trust your answers. 
There's all kinds of levels of knowledge here.  Me?  I think it is naive to believe that the clubs offer arb w/o any clue as to what the response is going to be.  If Beltre only gets 8 million -- did the declined arb offer help or hurt his cause?