Hot Seat Ike

[Ceetar]

Benjamin Grimm wrote: Isn't there some rule that says that if a player is released before March 31, the team only has to pay a portion of his contract? Obviously, that doesn't apply to multi-year contacts, but I think it does apply to one-year deals. It's possible that such a rule, if it ever existed, may no longer be in effect.

There's something like that. It's not the 31st though, it's closer to the 21st. I can't find the specifics in the CBA (although maybe they did get rid of it)

It only applied to a specific type of player, that might've been arbitration (because these guys are still under initial contracts right?) raise guys. It also might only apply to guys that actually get arbitration, because the "agree to terms" thing most teams do to avoid arbitration might be a new contract?

[Frayed Knot]

Teams CAN walk away from arbitrated contracts if they don't like the result. The player then immediately becomes a FA.
It's a somewhat different set of guidelines that governs non-guaranteed invite type of deals where, if a player is released by a certain date they owe him X pct of the amount and by a later but still pre-opening day date they owe him a greater pct.

[Ceetar]

Frayed Knot wrote: Teams CAN walk away from arbitrated contracts if they don't like the result. The player then immediately becomes a FA. It's a somewhat different set of guidelines that governs non-guaranteed invite type of deals where, if a player is released by a certain date they owe him X pct of the amount and by a later but still pre-opening day date they owe him a greater pct.

Yeah, wasn't sure if arbitrated contracts counted as "real" contracts or not, but makes sense that they would. (for all three years? do options matter?)

It's under Termination Pay in the CBA. gotta be before 16 days prior to the start of the season. If it's after that, but still spring training, they get an extra 45 days, and if the season starts, they get termination pay equal to the full year. If the guy has minor league provisions/rate in his contract and is terminated before that day, he only gets the minor league rate.

[Frayed Knot]

Termination pay and arbitration aren't the same thing.

Termination is when a non-guaranteed deal is not picked up after ST has started but prior to OD. The player receives something for his time depending on exactly when he's released.

When a team walks away from arbitration -- either by not offering or by walking away from the result -- it's like no contract ever existed; the player becomes a FA and is free to hunt for a deal elsewhere. I don't believe there's a financial settlement due to the player in this case although I don't claim to be up on all the specifics.

[metirish]

What kills me about Ike is he'll hit a bomb and I'll get to thinking wow maybe he can figure this out.....but in reality I know he likely won't...it's the hope that kills.

[Ceetar]

Frayed Knot wrote: Termination pay and arbitration aren't the same thing. Termination is when a non-guaranteed deal is not picked up after ST has started but prior to OD. The player receives something for his time depending on exactly when he's released. When a team walks away from arbitration -- either by not offering or by walking away from the result -- it's like no contract ever existed; the player becomes a FA and is free to hunt for a deal elsewhere. I don't believe there's a financial settlement due to the player in this case although I don't claim to be up on all the specifics.

I think there still is..something. But I was more referencing Grimm's question. Arbitration Is decided earlier on in Spring Training.

[Frayed Knot]

Yes, that's why there's a specific window for when arb cases are decided, so that if a team wants to walk away from it the player isn't screwed trying to land another job after rosters have pretty much been set. I believe that once an arb deal is accepted by both sides it becomes guaranteed for the full amount and, even if not, just the fact that a team went to arb with a player in the first place means he's unlikely to be a guy they'd change their mind on before the season even starts.

The non-guaranteed type of deals that fringe or rehabbing players often get (Byrd might have been in this category this past Spring) wouldn't be the ones decided through arbitration and those are the ones that can be terminated closer to OD without the team being on the hook for the entire amount.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Do Mets still like Ike?
By AJ Mass | ESPN.com

The New York Mets may well end up deciding that Ike Davis will not be their starting first baseman in 2014. However, they have no interest in simply letting the 26-year-old walk via free agency, with the team getting no compensation in return.

Pay the ESPN insider fee and you can read the rest of the article. I didn't, so I can't.

http://insider.espn.go.com/blog/mlb/rumors/post?id=7533

[HahnSolo]

Brief summary from link: Rubin says team insiders are hinting that they will tender an offer to Davis. Feeling is that doing so would not be too cost prohibitive. This would still leave a trade as a viable option. Mentioned Colorado as a potential partner, as they may be looking to part ways with Todd Helton.

[Guest LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr]

HahnSolo wrote: Brief summary from link: Rubin says team insiders are hinting that they will tender an offer to Davis. Feeling is that doing so would not be too cost prohibitive. This would still leave a trade as a viable option. Mentioned Colorado as a potential partner, as they may be looking to part ways with Todd Helton.

In exchange for what-- paying his salary and listening to their snickers?

[HahnSolo]

Brief summary from link: Rubin says team insiders are hinting that they will tender an offer to Davis. Feeling is that doing so would not be too cost prohibitive. This would still leave a trade as a viable option. Mentioned Colorado as a potential partner, as they may be looking to part ways with Todd Helton. In exchange for what-- paying his salary and listening to their snickers?

I didnt take it that they would be looking to move Ike for Helton...just that Helton may be gone and they need someone to replace him. Or more likely, Rubin or his source is just making crap up.

[Guest LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr]

Ah, yes. This reading comprehension thing, it sometimes eludes me.

[ashie62]

Simply put...tender Davis and either keep or trade him.

Some other team would have to see the 5 million or so as value for this "slugger" to move him or the Mets own him.