Pirates get victory in arbitration case against first baseman Jones
An MLB arbitration panel Thursday sided with the Pirates in their case against first baseman Garrett Jones. The team also came to terms with infielder Casey McGehee, avoiding an arbitration hearing scheduled for Thursday.
The three-person panel chose the Pirates' figure of $2.25 million instead of Jones' requested $2.5 million. This was the first time Jones, 30, was eligible for salary arbitration. He made $455,500 last year.
McGehee and the team settled on a one-year deal worth $2.54 million, which was the midpoint of their arbitration salary figures. McGehee had requested $2.725 million, and the Pirates had offered $2.35 million. He made $468,000 in 2011.
With spring training set to begin Sunday — players report Saturday but do not practice — all of the Pirates' arbitration-eligible players are under contracts.
The Pirates a 1-1 in arbitration hearings under general manager Neal Huntington. Last year, the club lost its case against right-hander Ross Ohlendorf. Despite winning just one game in 2010, Ohlendorf was awarded $2.025 million by arbiters.
Ohlendorf missed most of last season due to injuries and was non-tendered. Ohlendorf yesterday agreed to a minor-league contract with the Boston Red Sox.
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments â either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.