I really want to keep Villar (Update: Traded to Marlins for LHS Easton Lucas)

[weams]

Quote

If the Twins part ways with Cron, they’d be at $48.9MM in guaranteed contracts plus another $41.1MM in projected arbitration salaries and pre-arbitration contracts.

MLBTR

[sportsfan8703]

8 minutes ago, interloper said:

I'm more and more ok with letting Villar walk. It really just doesn't matter. Yeah, it's a mandate from ownership to keep payroll low during the rebuild, but honestly that's fine as long as the dollars are there when it matters/Elias wants them, which we have no reason to believe isn't the case at the moment. Villar isn't going to help Elias field a winning team, so what does he care? He probably doesn't, and it frees up a roster spot to tinker with and acquire a guy with control/options. 

In the grand scheme of things, this move is really pretty meaningless. I don't think Elias is losing any sleep over it and he might prefer Villar be off the roster anyway. 

I've come around that this isn't a bid deal, but where does it stop?  I mean, why pay Bleier 1.1 million?  There's plenty of lefties that could offer the same as him.  Why pay Castro?  You could do this with all the arbitration eligible guys until you get to an expansion team level roster.  

If the goal was to get the #1 pick in the 2020 draft, well then we failed.  What if we really like Kumar Rocker, SP Vanderbilt, and we aren't playing around with tanking so we can get the 2021 #1 draft pick.  

[wildbillhiccup]

12 minutes ago, sportsfan8703 said:

I think we may have an answer as to why Elias went this route.  He was hoping multiple teams would put in claims, which would create a trade market before the non tender deadline.  We'll all find out soon enough.  

From what I'm reading outright waivers are not revocable. So Elias is banking on no teams claiming him. Didn't this happen with Troy Tulowtizki when the Blue Jays waived him and Yankees claimed him? 

2) Irrevocable Outright Waivers (AKA Special Waivers): This is the way that a team clears room on its 40-man roster. If a player is on a team’s 40-man roster but they wish to remove that player from the 40-man, the player must first be placed on irrevocable outright waivers. Any team can then claim the player for a modest fee ($20K). These waivers are non-revocable, meaning that if a player is claimed off waivers, the original team has no choice but to let that player go to the other team.

Also, this is the same process that a player must go through before being demoted to the minors if they are out of options. Players with options can be demoted and promoted easily, but once they are out of options, they must first pass through irrevocable outright waivers before being demoted again.

[sportsfan8703]

3 minutes ago, wildbillhiccup said:

According to this, outright waivers are not revocable. 

Type	Function	Revocable?	Price	Periods Available	Period Effective	Ineligible Players
Trade Assignment Waivers	To assign a player on the 40-man roster of one MLB club to the 40-man roster of another MLB club.	Yes*	$20,000	4:00 pm ET on July 31 through the last day of the season	Rest of period	Disabled†, Military, Ineligible, Voluntarily Retired, Bereavement, Restricted, Suspended, or Disqualified Lists
Outright Waivers	To remove a player from the 40-man roster and assign him to a minor league club.	No	$20,000	(1) Nov 11 - Feb 15 (2) Feb 16 - 30th day of the season (3) 31st day - July 31 (4) Aug 1 - Aug31 (5) Sept 1 - Nov 10	(1,2,5) Rest of period or 7 days (whichever is first) (3,4) Rest of period	Disabled†, Military, Ineligible, Voluntarily Retired, Bereavement, Restricted, Suspended, or Disqualified Lists
Unconditional Release Waivers	To terminate the relationship between an MLB player and the club and make him a free agent.	No	$1	All times	Immediate	Military List, Ineligible List

* When a player that was previously pulled back from revocable waivers is placed on the same type of waivers during the same waiver period, that waiver request becomes irrevocable. That is, a player who is placed on waivers may only be pulled back once.

† Outright and trade assignment waivers can be obtained for players on the disabled list only if: a) the minimum period of inactivity (15 or 60 days) has elapsed; b) the assigning club guarantees the player is well enough to play.

This is probably out of date because there are no such thing as trade waivers anymore.  There's no more August waiver trading period.  

[Frobby]

11 minutes ago, interloper said:

I'm more and more ok with letting Villar walk. It really just doesn't matter. Yeah, it's a mandate from ownership to keep payroll low during the rebuild, but honestly that's fine as long as the dollars are there when it matters/Elias wants them, which we have no reason to believe isn't the case at the moment. Villar isn't going to help Elias field a winning team, so what does he care? He probably doesn't, and it frees up a roster spot to tinker with and acquire a guy with control/options. 

In the grand scheme of things, this move is really pretty meaningless. I don't think Elias is losing any sleep over it and he might prefer Villar be off the roster anyway. 

Another way to look at this: if another team had put Villar on waivers, would you want the O’s to claim him and be bound to arbitrate with him?    If not, then why be upset that we put him on waivers and might non-tender him?

[bobmc]

Como dulce!

 

 

[thezeroes]

2 hours ago, thezeroes said:

Right to Refuse Outright Assignment or Elect Free-Agency if Outrighted

Per Article XIX-A of the CBA, any player on an MLB 40-man roster who has accrued at least five years of MLB Service Time (as well as an international player with Article XIX-A contractual rights) has the right to refuse an Outright Assignment to the minors, or the player can elect to be a free-agent immediately upon being outrighted, or he can accept the Outright Assignment and defer his option to elect free-agency until after the conclusion of the MLB regular season.

However, an Article XIX-A player who accepts an Outright Assignment and defers his option to elect free-agency until after the conclusion of the MLB regular season forfeits his right to elect free-agency (as an Article XIX-A minor league free-agent) if he is added back to an MLB 40-man roster prior to the conclusion of the MLB regular season.

If a player with Article XIX-A rights refuses an Outright Assignment but does not elect free-agency, the club must either retain the player on the club's MLB Reserve List (40-man roster), trade the player, or give the player his unconditional release.

If a player with Article XIX-A rights is outrighted and elects to be a free-agent immediately, his contract is terminated and he receives no termination pay. But if the player accepts the Outright Assignment and defers his right to be a free-agent until the conclusion of the MLB regular season, the player continues to get paid, receiving the balance of his salary through to the end of the season. And then if the outrighted player is not subsequently added back to an MLB 40-man roster prior to the conclusion of the MLB regular season, the player can elect free-agency anytime beginning on the day after the conclusion of the MLB regular season through October 15th.

A player with Article XIX-A rights can waive his right to refuse an outright assignment or elect free-agency if outrighted, but the waiver cannot be signed more than ten days prior to MLB Opening Day, the player has the right to designate in advance which minor league team to which he can be assigned, and the waiver automatically expires if the player is not outrighted to the minors within 45 days or by the 45th day of the MLB regular season (whichever is later).

 

44 minutes ago, weams said:

Are you of the opinion that Villar can be withdrawn from waivers? Because if not, he can no longer be traded. 

Sighting the article above, several things can happen to which a alluded to in my post. Villar would not be withdrawn, just that the Outright Waivers reach their conclusion.

[weams]

1 minute ago, thezeroes said:

 

Sighting the article above, several things can happen to which a alluded to in my post. Villar would not be withdrawn, just that the Outright Waivers reach their conclusion.

I agree. Once they do. Yes. I agree with that. 

[interloper]

5 minutes ago, Frobby said:

Another way to look at this: if another team had put Villar on waivers, would you want the O’s to claim him and be bound to arbitrate with him?    If not, then why be upset that we put him on waivers and might non-tender him?

Exactly. My answer to that question is "hard no", so. There you go. 

[sportsfan8703]

1 minute ago, weams said:

I agree. Once they do. Yes. I agree with that. 

I wish the sun writer when Elias gave quotes about the situation would have asked him what the details of the move were.  I guess we can all hold up some hope that we get at least something for Villar.  

[wildbillhiccup]

4 minutes ago, thezeroes said:

 

Sighting the article above, several things can happen to which a alluded to in my post.

So it sounds like the most likely outcomes are:

1) Another team claims Villar.

2) Villar passes through waivers and elects to become a FA. 

[wildbillhiccup]

Just now, sportsfan8703 said:

I wish the sun writer when Elias gave quotes about the situation would have asked him what the details of the move were.  I guess we can all hold up some hope that we get at least something for Villar.  

...or Roch for that matter. I know these waiver rules are complicated and ever changing, but is it really too much to ask a sport's reporter to have a thorough understanding of them? 

[weams]

2 minutes ago, wildbillhiccup said:

So it sounds like the most likely outcomes are:

1) Another team claims Villar.

2) Villar passes through waivers and elects to become a FA. 

99 percent of the total outcomes are right there.  Yes. 

[wildbillhiccup]

9 minutes ago, Frobby said:

Another way to look at this: if another team had put Villar on waivers, would you want the O’s to claim him and be bound to arbitrate with him?    If not, then why be upset that we put him on waivers and might non-tender him?

...because that perspective doesn't feed the blind anger argument of a few of our members. 

[wildbillhiccup]

Just now, weams said:

99 percent of the total outcomes are right there.  Yes. 

Got it (finally). Thanks @weams!