Dodgers left-hander Vesia filed for salary arbitration. Here’s a look at the difference between the two sides, the team’s history in arbitration, and pitchers comparable to Vesia
The Dodgers settled contracts with all but one of their players eligible for salary arbitration, with only left-hander Alex Vesia remaining unsigned from that group. Let’s dig deeper into what could up a potential arbitration hearing.
On the exchange date of Thursday, January 9, Vesia filed for a salary of $2.35 million, and the Dodgers filed at $2.05 million.
Among the 17 players who exchanged salary figures with their team this season, Vesia and the Dodgers’ have the fifth-smallest gap in both total dollars ($300,000) and percentage difference (14.6 percent).
If the Dodgers to end up going to a hearing with Vesia, that 14.6-percent difference will be the second-smallest for the team in the 51-year history of the arbitration process. Of the previous 22 Dodgers hearings, the smallest difference was Báez in 2020, whose $4 million filing was 14.3 percent more than the Dodgers’ $3.5 million offer. Báez won his hearing.
One would think a 14.6-percent difference wouldn’t be too difficult to strike a deal and avoid a hearing, but in negotiations it takes two to tango.
The Dodgers don’t like to pigeonhole themselves with labels, and have said repeatedly they have no hard and fast rules. But in practice, they fit the mold of a “file and trial” team when it comes to salary arbitration, with no one-year deals signed after the exchange date.
In the 11 years under an Andrew Friedman-led front office, 85 Dodgers players eligible for salary arbitration have entered January without a deal, and 77 of them (90.6 percent) completed a deal by the exchange date, including Evan Phillips, Michael Kopech, Brusdar Graterol, and Anthony Banda last Thursday.
Of the previous seven players who exchanged arbitration salaries, five of them reached deals on multi-year contracts.
The Dodgers bought out all three of Max Muncy’s arbitration years ahead of the 2020 season, but the rest of these deals were all for two seasons.
Both starting pitchers in this group had small year-to-year increases in guaranteed money, but each had escalators built into the deal based on performance. Walker Buehler tacked on $3 million to his 2022 salary thanks to making at least 28 starts in 2021 (he made 33), and Tony Gonsolin earned an extra $2 million in 2024 based on the 20 starts he made in 2023.
The other two two-year contracts were more straight forward, with Chris Taylor in 2020 and Austin Barnes in 2021, both buying out their final two years. At over four years of service time, they are at the spot Vesia is in now.
Both Taylor and Barnes exchanged salaries with the team in these seasons, and then later worked out a two year deal. Taylor filed at $5.8 million, with the Dodgers offering $5.25 million. Barnes filed at $1.5 million with the Dodgers at $2 million. If we use the midpoints of their filing numbers, Taylor saw the equivalent of a 42.6-percent raise in the second year of his deal, while Barnes’ equivalent was at 45.7-percent.
Vesia’s midpoint this year is $2.2 million, so let’s use that as a first-year salary. A 42.6-percent raise makes for about $5.34 million over two years; a 45.7-percent raise has him at about $5.4 million. A 50-percent raise is a $5.5 million deal, and a 60-percent raise is $5.72 million over two seasons.
That at least gives us a rough idea of what such a deal might look like for Vesia. But if the Dodgers can’t work out a multi-year contract with Vesia, the two sides will head to a hearing, which would be held at some point between January 27 and February 14 in Florida, depending on when scheduled by MLB.
The Dodgers haven’t had an arbitration hearing since 2020. They had two that year, beating Joc Pederson and losing to Báez. Those are the only two hearings the Dodgers have had dating back to 2008.
Both ends of the spectrum
Vesia is asking for $2.35 million, and the Dodgers would rather pay him $2.05 million. If they can’t work out a deal beforehand, a three-person arbitration panel would hear each side, then pick the salary of one or the other, with no in-between.
The collective bargaining agreement outlines the parameters of an arbitration hearing, which starts with the player’s side going first followed by the team. Each side is limited to one hour in their initial presentation, then limited to a half-hour for rebuttal and summation, though cross-examination does not count against those time limits.
Among the restrictions are on which stats are allowed in the presentation. From the CBA:
“Only publicly available statistics shall be admissible. For purposes of this provision, publicly available statistics shall include data available through subscription-only websites (e.g., Baseball Prospectus). Statistics and data generated through the use of performance technology, wearable technology, or “STATCAST”, whether publicly available or not, shall not be admissible.”
When I looked back at pitchers comparable to Vesia at four years of service time, two relievers from last season turned out to suit our needs perfectly.
Hunter Harvey, then with the Nationals, earned $2.35 million for 2024, which is the exact salary submitted by Vesia. Left-hander Hoby Milner with the Brewers last year signed for $2.05 million, which is the exact salary submitted by the Dodgers.
Here are their seasons immediately preceding this arbitration year:
- Harvey (2023): 60⅔ IP, 2.82 ERA, 3.33 xERA, 3.29 FIP, 0.940 WHIP, 67 K, 13 BB
- Vesia (2024): 66⅓ IP, 1.76 ERA, 2.81 xERA, 3.45 FIP, 0.995 WHIP, 87 K, 33 BB
- Milner (2023): 64⅓ IP, 1.82 ERA, 2.95 xERA, 3.13 FIP, 0.964 WHIP, 59 K, 13 BB
Vesia and Milner had similar seasons in many areas. Vesia has more strikeouts but also more walks; his strikeout-minus walk rate was 20.5 percent, compared to 18.3 percent for Milner. Vesia saved five games to Milner’s none, giving him an edge.
Harvey’s peripherals were more similar to Vesia than the ERAs suggest, including a 23-percent strikeout-minus-walk rate. Harvey also saved 10 games, to five for Vesia. Harvey’s average leverage index was 1.622, much higher than Vesia’s 1.164, giving Harvey an edge.
Let’s look at the career numbers leading up to four years of service time for all three pitchers:
- Harvey: 123⅔ IP, 2.84 ERA, 3.17 FIP, 1.051 WHIP, 135 K, 34 BB
- Vesia: 214⅔ IP, 2.89 ERA, 3.53 FIP, 1.160 WHIP, 289 K, 103 BB
- Milner: 206⅓ IP, 3.53 ERA, 4.13 FIP, 1.236 WHIP, 199 K, 59 BB
Vesia has Milner beat across the board, in a similar amount of innings — better ERA, better FIP, better WHIP, better strikeout-minus-walk rate (20.8 percent to 16 percent), and saves (eight to zero).
Harvey has a better FIP and WHIP, but their ERAs and strikeout-minus-walk rate (20.6 percent for Harvey) are nearly the same. The difference in saves (10 to eight in favor of Harvey) is negligible.
Vesia blows Harvey away in bulk numbers with 91 more innings to this point in their careers, 73.6 percent more than Harvey. I think that difference should be enough to lean Vesia more in the direction of Harvey’s $2.35 million than the $2.05 million for Milner.
But the big separator could be October. Milner pitched 2⅓ scoreless innings in his two games in the 2023 wild card round for Milwaukee, his only career postseason experience.
Harvey has never pitched in the postseason.
Vesia in 2024 alone pitched 5⅔ scoreless innings in his seven postseason appearances, including a save in Game 2 of the World Series. In his career, Vesia has a 1.23 ERA in 19 postseason appearances, with 19 strikeouts and eight walks in 14⅔ innings.
I think if this goes to an arbitration hearing, Vesia will win, and the best way for the Dodgers to avoid this is to sign him to a multi-year contract ahead of time.