Jan 31, 2010, 12:27 PM EST
At least if the words of team negotiator Teddy Werner are to be believed. The two sides will likely head to an arbitration hearing after the Brewers pulled their latest offer to outfielder Corey Hart, reports Tom Haudricourt of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.
“We made a final offer that we thought was a good offer,” said Werner.
“It’s significantly higher than the number we filed. They didn’t like
it. I said, ‘See you in Tampa in a couple of weeks.'”
Hart requested $4.8 million while the Brewers filed for $4.15 million when arbitration figures were exchanged last week. As Haudricourt notes, the Brewers have never went to an arbitration hearing under general manager Doug Melvin.
“Maybe they think we’re bluffing,” said Werner. “But we’re not.”
Hart is nowhere near as indispensable as a Tim Lincecum, but there’s a lot to lose for both sides if this goes to a hearing. The nature of such hearings can have long-lasting effects on the relationship between an organization and its player. Hart’s game has plenty of faults, and the Brewers will be sure to point them out if it comes to it.
- Matt Harvey makes his return. And he was really impressive. 10
- Hector Olivera’s camp denies any damage to ulnar collateral ligament 3
- UPDATE: Hunter Pence out 6-8 weeks with fracture in left forearm 28
- MLBPA: leaks are from people “who want to see Josh Hamilton hurt personally and professionally” 34
- Suspending Josh Hamilton for a year would be obscene 145
- Report: MLB panel split on rehab for Josh Hamilton; one-year suspension is in play 45
- Joc Pederson goes 2-for-2 in Cactus League debut 6
- Braves scratch Mike Minor from start with more shoulder problems 6
- Daniel Murphy on Billy Bean: “I do disagree with the fact that Billy is a homosexual” (379)
- Suspending Josh Hamilton for a year would be obscene (146)
- Curt Schilling lowers the boom on some men tweeting threats against his daughter (137)
- That facts of Josh Hamilton’s case should not be a matter of public record (94)
- Billy Bean responds to Daniel Murphy’s comments (90)