Joyner Rejects 2-Year Offer Made by Angels

Representatives of the Angels and Wally Joyner agreed Friday that they continue to disagree in their attempt to avoid arbitration through the signing of a 2-year contract.

Michael Watkins, who represents Joyner in conjunction with attorney Barry Axelrod, confirmed Friday night that Joyner had rejected a 2-year offer that could have paid him more than the $965,000 he is asking in arbitration and more yet in 1990, the second year of the contract.

The exact offer was $965,000 plus incentives in 1989 and $1.275 million plus incentives in 1990.

The Angels had gone public with Joyner’s rejection Friday afternoon when they announced the signing of veteran free-agent relief pitcher Mark Clear to a 1-year contract and offered an update on their four arbitration cases.

A club spokesman said that General Manager Mike Port felt he was close to a 3-year agreement with shortstop Dick Schofield, would meet today with agent Tom Reich, who represents outfielder Chili Davis and relief pitcher Greg Minton, and that Joyner had turned down a 2-year contract that would have paid him what he is asking in arbitration and substantially more in the second year.

The statement, Port said Friday night, came in response to media speculation and inquiries about the status of negotiations and was an attempt to show the public that the Angels are putting “their best foot forward.”

He pointed out that the club did not release the figures, though the $965,000 was obvious. The 1990 figures emerged during an appearance by Axelrod on a KMPC talk show, an appearance prompted by the Angels’ statement.

“What ticks the three of us off,” Watkins said, alluding to Joyner, Axelrod and himself, “is that we had a conference call with Mike Monday and agreed that we wouldn’t negotiate in the press, we wouldn’t drag this through a public forum.

“Yes, we turned this deal down, but both sides have turned deals down. We still have until Feb. 6 (the date of Joyner’s arbitration) to get this done, so why come out with anything until the apple is ripe, until we either have a deal or the arbitrator makes a decision? It seems to me they’re just trying to make Wally look bad.”

A year ago, of course, the Angels looked bad. Public sentiment seemed to favor Joyner in a contract hassle that prompted a brief spring holdout before he agreed to $340,000.

At that point, lacking the 3 years necessary to qualify for arbitration, he had no other options.

Why would he now reject a contract that improves on his filing figure?

Watkins said that the two sides are very close on numbers and that Joyner might have even agreed to the offer he has rejected if it included a signing bonus to compensate for the salary he may lose if the owners stage a lockout in 1990, a possible tactic in the collective bargaining negotiations.

“If a lockout lasts for 3 months, how much of that second-year salary does he actually get?” Watkins said.

Port explained that industry policy excludes signing bonuses for players who do not have 5 years in and, thus, are not on the verge of becoming a free agent after the sixth.

“In Wally’s case,” he said, “we’re not buying free agency.”

Port also said that he is willing to include neutral lockout language that would allow an arbitrator to decide if Joyner should be paid in the event of a lockout.

Claudell Washington agreed to the same language when he signed with the Angels recently, Port said.

“I’m not sure where the club goes from here,” Port said, adding that he was willing to go to $965,000 in the context of a contract that would commit Joyner to more than 1 year, but a 1-year offer might be closer to the $750,000 that the club submitted in arbitration.

Watkins said that Joyner was disappointed but not angered by the Angels’ public announcement, that he recognizes it as business and that he is still open to continuing negotiations.