35 year old pitcher. Yes, I know that's kind of old for an arb-eligible guy, but he's been a AAAA pitcher most of his career. Third year arb. His arb demand is $7.4m. His long term demand is 1 x $4.8m. Seems like a no-brainer to sign him to the "long-term" one season contract and save $2.6m.

he gets very stressed by conflict. he doesn't think he could handle a contentious arbitration hearing.

Seems like a no brainer to let him walk if hes a  35 year old AAAA pitcher.

Maybe AAAA was a bit much.

Career 1.32 WHIP in 879 ML innings. He's got good DUR/STA so he can eat a lot of innings, so he's a decent #5 SP for me. Doesn't hurt my rotation and I don't mind spending the $4.8m on him.

Just seemed odd that the LT for a one-season contract was so much less than the arb demand. Normally, the engine should make you want to decide about arbing or not, knowing that there's a future risk for going to arb 3 times. This particular case completely takes the decision and the risk away. Not sure if that's what the intent should be.

I think you know why it happened.   It's just something they haven't programmed in because it shouldn't happen.

Right. I wasn't complaining about it. Just pointing out that it was odd.