Tender Updates (Janish, Lough Non-Tendered)

[weams]

If they don't agree to a contract, won't it automatically go to arbitration?

Or trade him to Colorado like they did Jeremy Guthrie when he said he looked forward to the process.

[Aristotelian]

They could release him.

Or trade him to Colorado like they did Jeremy Guthrie when he said he looked forward to the process.

Released or traded, Matusz would still get paid his arbitration dollars, correct?

[mdbdotcom]

Released or traded, Matusz would still get paid his arbitration dollars, correct?

If he is released before the arbitration hearing there will be no arbitration hearing. He will be a free agent, as if he'd been non-tendered.

[weams]

Released or traded, Matusz would still get paid his arbitration dollars, correct?

Correct.

[weams]

If he is released before the arbitration hearing there will be no arbitration hearing. He will be a free agent, as if he'd been non-tendered.

I do not think so. I still think the hammer of the Rockies trade is all that the team has to convince a guy to sign.

[mdbdotcom]

I do not think so. I still think the hammer of the Rockies trade is all that the team has to convince a guy to sign.

I have no idea what this means.

The tender deadline came about after the Red Sox failed to offer contracts to Fred Lynn and Carlton Fisk by the date their existing contracts expired. The two sued for, and were granted, free agency. Since then, as contracts have soared, teams have used the deadline to "non-tender" players, which simply means to not offer the player a contract.

If a team offers the player a contract, and the two sides fail to negotiate a deal, they go to arbitration to set the size of the contract. But I do not think offering a player a contract obligates the team to go to arbitration if they would prefer to simply release the player before the two sides submit arbitration figures. I could be wrong. Does anyone know for sure?

[Aristotelian]

If he is released before the arbitration hearing there will be no arbitration hearing. He will be a free agent, as if he'd been non-tendered.

If that is true, what is the incentive to nontender anybody before the arb hearing? Why not just wait and release the player later?

[weams]

I have no idea what this means.

The tender deadline came about after the Red Sox failed to offer contracts to Fred Lynn and Carlton Fisk by the date their existing contracts expired. The two sued for, and were granted, free agency. Since then, as contracts have soared, teams have used the deadline to "non-tender" players, which simply means to not offer the player a contract.

If a team offers the player a contract, and the two sides fail to negotiate a deal, they go to arbitration to set the size of the contract. But I do not think offering a player a contract obligates the team to go to arbitration if they would prefer to simply release the player before the two sides submit arbitration figures. I could be wrong. Does anyone know for sure?

No. But I think it does. I think you have to trade them to be free of the obligation.

[backwardsk]

If he is released before the arbitration hearing there will be no arbitration hearing. He will be a free agent, as if he'd been non-tendered.

If that's true, what is the purpose of the non-tender deadline?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[mdbdotcom]

If that is true, what is the incentive to nontender anybody before the arb hearing? Why not just wait and release the player later?

Roster management. Free ups space for new signs. Also, why even start the clock toward arbitration if you know you don't want to pay what they are likely to get? I'm just guessing.

[Larry18]

I have no idea what this means.

The tender deadline came about after the Red Sox failed to offer contracts to Fred Lynn and Carlton Fisk by the date their existing contracts expired. The two sued for, and were granted, free agency. Since then, as contracts have soared, teams have used the deadline to "non-tender" players, which simply means to not offer the player a contract.

If a team offers the player a contract, and the two sides fail to negotiate a deal, they go to arbitration to set the size of the contract. But I do not think offering a player a contract obligates the team to go to arbitration if they would prefer to simply release the player before the two sides submit arbitration figures. I could be wrong. Does anyone know for sure?

A tendered contract has to be equal to the previous years salary.

[Crazysilver03]

If he is released before the arbitration hearing there will be no arbitration hearing. He will be a free agent, as if he'd been non-tendered.

This isnt accurate. He would still be owed some kind of percentage, though I dont know the specifics. Citing an example from several CBAs ago isnt good evidence.

Sent from my LG-D850 using Tapatalk

[mdbdotcom]

This isnt accurate. He would still be owed some kind of percentage, though I dont know the specifics. Citing an example from several CBAs ago isnt good evidence.

Sent from my LG-D850 using Tapatalk

In other words, you don't know, either.

[Crazysilver03]

In other words, you don't know, either.

But I definitely know you cant just release them and not owe them something. You are locked into a contract after the tender deadline. Just the amount hasn't been set. But there are different percentages owed when released at various times.

Sent from my LG-D850 using Tapatalk

[Larry18]

This isnt accurate. He would still be owed some kind of percentage, though I dont know the specifics. Citing an example from several CBAs ago isnt good evidence.

Sent from my LG-D850 using Tapatalk

He is correct. There is a deadline to submit for arbitration at which the player becomes a free agent if the team doesn't submit for arbitration. I think that's around the beginning of the year. This allows the team and player to negotiate a contract within a reasonable amount of time for both sides.