- This topic has 15 replies, 6 voices, and was last updated 7 years, 7 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
I’m pretty new here, but I’ve enjoyed reading everyone’s opinions and analysis.
With that said, there’s constant talk about the FO wanting to upgrade the pen, and I agree, we need help. We’ve also got plenty of cap space and payroll flexibility. I want to see them be aggressive, without over-reaching or over-paying for aging top end closers. If we get a solid stable of arms, a mix of young upside talent and older veterans, I think the closers role can be worked out in spring training, or to a degree by committee.
So I guess my question is, who from the FA market should we go after? and who from our current pen, do we part ways with?
Welcome, Cardfan7791. There is already a thread about closers and relievers where a lot of this discussion has already gone on. You might take a look there and join in. Here is the link.
https://thecardinalnation.com/forums/topic/free-agent-closer-thread/
So are the Cards planning on going with 3 lefties in the pen? Is it a pitchoff between Shreve and Cecil for the second spot?
Brian, are you sure Shreve’s contract is not guaranteed? The MLB web site says non guaranteed contracts are arbitration contracts, minor league contracts, and split contracts. Since Shreve didn’t go to arbitration his contract doesn’t fall in to one of these catagories. I also thought I read once that this was one of the incentives for players to agree to terms prior to arbitration.
The current bullpen if you give spots to everyone without options
Miller
Cecil
ShreveGant/ Waino (other starts)
Myers
Leone
Gregerson
HicksCC, my understanding is Shreve agreed to his arb salary before the arb process, but it’s still an arb season salary.
After opening day it becomes guaranteed.
Hope I’m not misunderstanding your question.Jj-cf-stl, I think you understand the question but have a different interpretation than I do. I dont believe it is an arbitratiion contract because they didnt go to arbitration. But I could be wrong.
Cots calls it “avoided arbitration” on Shreves listing.
That leaves me to believe any player who signed before an arbitration hearing “avoided arbitration”, which is nearly all of them.
I agree. It is nearly all of them. One of the reasons you so seldom see players cut with the 30 or 45 day severence. Almost all of the contracts are guaranteed. Even the non arbitration eligible player’s contracts are guaranteed I believe as long as they have no split provision.
CC, the section of the CBA and the Uniform Player’s Contract that cover termination pay do not draw the distinction you mention specific to when and how the contract was agreed to.
I do see that on the MLB website on Guaranteed Contract that this particular variation is not clearly mentioned. The key seems to be how they define the term “arbitration contract”. There is no clarification if an “arbitration-eligible contract” signed early is different from an “arbitration hearing contract” which is signed late. My interpretation of your theory is the two are treated differently. My guess is the two are viewed as being one and the same in the context of termination pay.
The following does NOT apply to Shreve because he was neither extended nor was a free agent:
“Players who obtain Major League contracts — either via free agency or extensions — are guaranteed the full amount of money promised by those contracts.”
https://m.mlb.com/glossary/transactions/guaranteed-contract
I’ve not seen anything yet that we can conclude his deal is guaranteed. IMO, he seems more of an “arbitration contract” than a “free agent or extension”. But maybe there is something in the middle that is just not written in the places we are looking.
On Non-guaranteed Contract, it says this:
“Players who are on arbitration (unless specified at the time of the agreement), Minor League or split contracts are not fully guaranteed their salaries.”
This suggests even an arbitration contact could be guaranteed if both sides agree. That would be an exception not likely to be reported publicly.
https://m.mlb.com/glossary/transactions/non-guaranteed-contract
We know Shreve was arbitration-eligible the day the season ended and his prior contract expired.
“An unsigned player under club control who has accrued at least three but less than six years of MLB Service Time is automatically eligible for salary arbitration.”
The fact he came to terms before the tender date (and hearing date) does not change the fact he was arbitration-eligible.
This is just opinion and logic, but to me if ALL arb-eligible contracts agreed-to before a hearing are automatically guaranteed, that would serve as a dis-incentive to clubs to come to terms with marginal players prior to hearing. Why would a team want to be locked in to pay full salary to a marginal player unless they absolutely have to?
It would be cheaper for the team to go to hearing and even if they lose, they can cut the marginal guy during spring training for a fraction of the full-year salary and be way ahead.
If your theory was true, I would expect there would be a number of hearings for the very low-end of the arb-eligible guys.
Using Shreve as an example. Cots estimated he would get $1.2 MM via arb. He settled early for $900K. Instead, if the Cards had gone to hearing asking for $900K, and even if they lost at $1.2 MM, they could cut him in spring and be out as little as $200K and no more than $300K (my rough estimation of 30/45 days of termination pay) versus having to eat all $900K if automatically guaranteed earlier.
And if the Cards would win the hearing at $900K, then they can dump him later for just $150K to $225K. With it your way, there is no reason for a team to NOT go to hearing. It turns out being cheap insurance, which is what I think the current situation is.
Obviously for a Wacha or Ozuna, who have no chance of being released, this would not matter.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.