PDA

View Full Version : Garland signing = End of RJ to the sox!!


GiveMeSox
11-23-2004, 01:25 PM
The proposed deal of Konerko and Garland for RJ seems to be over from a logistic point of view. After a team signs a player there is an immediate no trade clause in effect for a short period of time. That is Garland cannot be traded for something like 60 days after signing his contract or until May 1st or whatever the rule is im not quite sure. Nevertheless, the deal is nulled by this MLB rule on contracts. Looks like it was all just a talk to begin with, literally!

Ol' No. 2
11-23-2004, 01:33 PM
The proposed deal of Konerko and Garland for RJ seems to be over from a logistic point of view. After a team signs a player there is an immediate no trade clause in effect for a short period of time. That is Garland cannot be traded for something like 60 days after signing his contract or until May 1st or whatever the rule is im not quite sure. Nevertheless, the deal is nulled by this MLB rule on contracts. Looks like it was all just a talk to begin with, literally!It's June 15. That provision applies only to free agents.

Iwritecode
11-23-2004, 01:33 PM
The proposed deal of Konerko and Garland for RJ seems to be over from a logistic point of view. After a team signs a player there is an immediate no trade clause in effect for a short period of time. That is Garland cannot be traded for something like 60 days after signing his contract or until May 1st or whatever the rule is im not quite sure. Nevertheless, the deal is nulled by this MLB rule on contracts. Looks like it was all just a talk to begin with, literally!

Do you have any proof of this? I've never heard of this rule...

infohawk
11-23-2004, 01:33 PM
Is this true even though the Sox control the rights to Garland over the next three or so years? After all, they didn't sign him to a contract extension. I thought the rules preventing a sign-and-trade applied to a situation were a player was a new acquisition or was signed to a new contract that actually extended the player's services to a team once his original contract expired.

The one-year deal just allows both parties to avoid going through the arbitration process. I would think that the prospect of avoiding an uncertain arbitration determination for 2005 actually makes Garland marginally more valuable as trade bait because his salary is a known quantity.

santo=dorf
11-23-2004, 01:33 PM
Garland wasn't a free agent. We don't have to wait until May or whatever to trade him.

maurice
11-23-2004, 01:35 PM
In addition, teams have skirted this rule in the past (at least with respect to recent draft picks) by making the player a nominal PTBNL. IIRC, that's how we got Neal Cotts.

OEO Magglio
11-23-2004, 01:36 PM
Correct like number 2 said, it only applies to free agents, Garland was still the sox property, he was just arbitration eligible.

Ol' No. 2
11-23-2004, 01:37 PM
Here's the relevant section:



(6) Miscellaneous





(a) Any Club signing a contract after the expiration of the election period with a Player under this Section B may not assign his contract until after the next June 15. However, notwithstanding the foregoing, such contract may be assigned for other Player contracts and/or cash consideration of $50,000 or less prior to the next June 16 if the Player gives written consent to such transaction.

Section B is the part dealing with free agents.

GiveMeSox
11-23-2004, 01:49 PM
Correct like number 2 said, it only applies to free agents, Garland was still the sox property, he was just arbitration eligible.
How was he still the sox property if he was not under contract anymore. He was arbitration eligible but he was not under contract. I dont get how this rule applies or doens't apply.

Ol' No. 2
11-23-2004, 01:55 PM
How was he still the sox property if he was not under contract anymore. He was arbitration eligible but he was not under contract. I dont get how this rule applies or doens't apply."Sox property" is perhaps not the best way to put this. They own his contract rights as part of the reserve system. Players with less than 6 years of major league service are not eligible for free agency. The "no sign and trade" clause that you mentioned applies only to free agents with six or more years of service.

Mohoney
11-23-2004, 01:56 PM
How was he still the sox property if he was not under contract anymore.
Even though he wasn't under contract, we had exclusive rights to him.

He hasn't been in the Major Leagues for 6 years, and therefore, hasn't earned Free Agent status.

infohawk
11-23-2004, 02:01 PM
How was he still the sox property if he was not under contract anymore. He was arbitration eligible but he was not under contract. I dont get how this rule applies or doens't apply.It is a matter of a major league team being able to control the rights to a player for the player's first several years in the league. It's either six or seven years. A team can pay a player at or near the minimum salary for the first four or five years. The player is eligible for arbitration over the remaining years. This just affords the player the right to have his value determined objectively over the remaining years of his initial tenure in the league.

GiveMeSox
11-23-2004, 02:11 PM
"Sox property" is perhaps not the best way to put this. They own his contract rights as part of the reserve system. Players with less than 6 years of major league service are not eligible for free agency. The "no sign and trade" clause that you mentioned applies only to free agents with six or more years of service.
Ok i ge it, that makes a lot more sense now. But what if the sox and Garland say couldn't agree on a deal. He cant be a FA cuz he hasn't been in the league 6 years and the sox own his rights but dont sign him. THen what???

Ol' No. 2
11-23-2004, 02:14 PM
Ok i ge it, that makes a lot more sense now. But what if the sox and Garland say couldn't agree on a deal. He cant be a FA cuz he hasn't been in the league 6 years and the sox own his rights but dont sign him. THen what???If they can't agree on a contract, the Sox have until Dec 20 to offer arbitration. He cannot decline if so offered. If they choose not to offer arbitration, he becomes a "non-tendered" player, and can sign with any team.

Flight #24
11-23-2004, 02:14 PM
Ok i ge it, that makes a lot more sense now. But what if the sox and Garland say couldn't agree on a deal. He cant be a FA cuz he hasn't been in the league 6 years and the sox own his rights but dont sign him. THen what???
Then he goes through arbitration, each side submits what they think he's worth, and an arbitrator makes the final decision as to what he gets paid in 2005.

GiveMeSox
11-23-2004, 02:23 PM
Then he goes through arbitration, each side submits what they think he's worth, and an arbitrator makes the final decision as to what he gets paid in 2005.
Gotcha. Man i would love be an arbitor for a living and do that sorta thing for basbeall teams and players. I do think there is a rule on arbitration that the player has to be guranteed at least 20% more than his last years salary. But it can still only be a 1 year deal.

OEO Magglio
11-23-2004, 02:25 PM
How was he still the sox property if he was not under contract anymore. He was arbitration eligible but he was not under contract. I dont get how this rule applies or doens't apply.
Sorry about that, didn't word it real well. Like others the sox had exclusive rights to him, that's what I meant.

Ol' No. 2
11-23-2004, 02:27 PM
Gotcha. Man i would love be an arbitor for a living and do that sorta thing for basbeall teams and players. I do think there is a rule on arbitration that the player has to be guranteed at least 20% more than his last years salary. But it can still only be a 1 year deal.Actually, the rule is that the team's arbitration offer cannot be less than 80% of the previous year's salary. He's not guaranteed a raise. And it does not apply to free agents.

Arbitrators have a tough job. They have to do a lot of research to try to find comparable players to decide what a player is worth.

Flight #24
11-23-2004, 02:30 PM
Arbitrators have a tough job. They have to do a lot of research to try to find comparable players to decide what a player is worth.You mean like WSI posters do every day of the week?:cool:
Getting paid, and likely quite handsomely for that job would be nice. Of course, I believe all of the arbitrators are something like former judges, etc, so it's not like they haven't paid their dues.

Ol' No. 2
11-23-2004, 02:35 PM
You mean like WSI posters do every day of the week?:cool:
Getting paid, and likely quite handsomely for that job would be nice. Of course, I believe all of the arbitrators are something like former judges, etc, so it's not like they haven't paid their dues.Good point. Arbitrators could make their job a lot easier by just looking over sites like WSI to find out what a player is worth. No...on second thought, given the level of disagreement, we'd just confuse him more.:o:

Flight #24
11-23-2004, 02:39 PM
Good point. Arbitrators could make their job a lot easier by just looking over sites like WSI to find out what a player is worth. No...on second thought, given the level of disagreement, we'd just confuse him more.:o:Just follow a few simple rules:

Anyone currently on the Sox = terrible & overpaid

Anyone NOT currently on the Sox = amazing and underpaid

GiveMeSox
11-23-2004, 02:40 PM
Good point. Arbitrators could make their job a lot easier by just looking over sites like WSI to find out what a player is worth. No...on second thought, given the level of disagreement, we'd just confuse him more.:o:
Amen to that.

SouthSide_HitMen
11-23-2004, 04:28 PM
Just follow a few simple rules:

Anyone currently on the Sox = terrible & overpaid

Anyone NOT currently on the Sox = amazing and underpaidOr they can follow the other 1/2 of the board (at the deep end of the Kool-Aid filled swimming pool):

Players signed / obtained by White Sox (ie the best ownership / GM in baseball history) = Awesome

Anyone signed by those damn rich teams, Sabermetric Geeks (including 2004 WS Champs), or any other team in MLB = Overpayed, 1/2 as good @ twice the cost, worthless.

Ol' No. 2
11-23-2004, 04:37 PM
Or they can follow the other 1/2 of the board (at the deep end of the Kool-Aid filled swimming pool):

Players signed / obtained by White Sox (ie the best ownership / GM in baseball history) = Awesome

Anyone signed by those damn rich teams, Sabermetric Geeks (including 2004 WS Champs), or any other team in MLB = Overpayed, 1/2 as good @ twice the cost, worthless.Isn't this fun?

wdelaney72
11-24-2004, 07:50 AM
I still don't think Garland factors into a trade with AZ for Unit. Konerko, yes, but not Garland. Konerko + Garland = $12.15 million. Unit is sceduled to make $16.5 million. The DBacks only save a little over $4 million in salary. They will want one of the younger pitchers, such as Grilli, Diaz, Cotts and probably another prospect (Sweeney, Anderson).

Ol' No. 2
11-24-2004, 09:00 AM
I still don't think Garland factors into a trade with AZ for Unit. Konerko, yes, but not Garland. Konerko + Garland = $12.15 million. Unit is sceduled to make $16.5 million. The DBacks only save a little over $4 million in salary. They will want one of the younger pitchers, such as Grilli, Diaz, Cotts and probably another prospect (Sweeney, Anderson).You forgot to include Sexson. Konerko replaces Sexson - that's almost a wash. They actually save more than $10M.

wdelaney72
11-24-2004, 09:11 AM
You forgot to include Sexson. Konerko replaces Sexson - that's almost a wash. They actually save more than $10M.
I don't think they are going to look at it that way. I thought I had heard a while back that the DBacks were having severe financial problems.

Look at our situation. Even with losing Jose and Magglio off the books, were already locked in at a 63.5 million payroll. I know our situation is different becuase we added Freddy and Contreras, but still, other players have payroll increases through their contracts and some get raises through arbitration. You can't just wipe away Sexson's contract and call it a wash.

If the DBacks weren't trying to dump payroll, they would just keep RJ around. But they've indicated they want to pull their equity out of him, save some money, and rebuild which translates to dropping payroll as much as possible.
Even if we use your figures. If the the DBacks are thinking "We want to lower payroll." Why would they choose to dump only $10M when they could dump closer to $14 million?

Ol' No. 2
11-24-2004, 09:17 AM
I don't think they are going to look at it that way. I thought I had heard a while back that the DBacks were having severe financial problems.

Look at our situation. Even with losing Jose and Magglio off the books, were already locked in at a 63.5 million payroll. I know our situation is different becuase we added Freddy and Contreras, but still, other players have payroll increases through their contracts and some get raises through arbitration. You can't just wipe away Sexson's contract and call it a wash.

If the DBacks weren't trying to dump payroll, they would just keep RJ around. But they've indicated they want to pull their equity out of him, save some money, and rebuild which translates to dropping payroll as much as possible.
Even if we use your figures. If the the DBacks are thinking "We want to lower payroll." Why would they choose to dump only $10M when they could dump closer to $14 million?From your earlier post:

I still don't think Garland factors into a trade with AZ for Unit. Konerko, yes, but not Garland. Konerko + Garland = $12.15 million. Unit is sceduled to make $16.5 million. The DBacks only save a little over $4 million in salary. They will want one of the younger pitchers, such as Grilli, Diaz, Cotts and probably another prospect (Sweeney, Anderson).If they're simply looking to reduce payroll, what sense does it make to want Konerko and not Garland?

The D-backs financial problem is that they have tons of money they're paying out in deferred salaries to players they no longer have. There's nothing they can do to alleviate that. Getting Konerko allows them to not re-sign Sexson. Garland, at only $3.4M, is cheap.

wdelaney72
11-24-2004, 09:28 AM
From your earlier post:

If they're simply looking to reduce payroll, what sense does it make to want Konerko and not Garland?

The D-backs financial problem is that they have tons of money they're paying out in deferred salaries to players they no longer have. There's nothing they can do to alleviate that. Getting Konerko allows them to not re-sign Sexson. Garland, at only $3.4M, is cheap.
Good point. I guess I'll defer to the possibility that the Diamondbacks will have to take SOME salary to get rid of all of RJs. I don't think any team would be willing to take on all $16.5 without sending a little back to AZ. It may come in the form of AZ eating a portion of the contract or taking on a PK contract. My guess is that AZ would prefer to bring in PK instead of just throwing money out the window.

Back to the original point of the thread, I just don't see Jon Garland being the make or break piece of this deal happening. I truly believe it's going to get done. There are very few teams out there that have the ability to take on his salary and still be able to provide AZ with quality players in return. This is just the type of risky move that KW would go for, and it has enough PR upside to have JR back it up.

I think the biggest obstacle in this deal is convincing RJ to approve a trade to the White Sox. I'd like to see the Sox make a couple of signifficant moves to upgrade the team which would convince RJ that the Sox were a contending team. Signing Freddy and Contreras is a good step, but our infield needs some upgrading.

JKryl
11-24-2004, 09:40 AM
Good point. Arbitrators could make their job a lot easier by just looking over sites like WSI to find out what a player is worth. No...on second thought, given the level of disagreement, we'd just confuse him more.:o:
Disagree? Us? I just like to think of it as our taking other roads to reach the same destination. A Sox win in the World Series!

Ol' No. 2
11-24-2004, 09:42 AM
Good point. I guess I'll defer to the possibility that the Diamondbacks will have to take SOME salary to get rid of all of RJs. I don't think any team would be willing to take on all $16.5 without sending a little back to AZ. It may come in the form of AZ eating a portion of the contract or taking on a PK contract. My guess is that AZ would prefer to bring in PK instead of just throwing money out the window.

Back to the original point of the thread, I just don't see Jon Garland being the make or break piece of this deal happening. I truly believe it's going to get done. There are very few teams out there that have the ability to take on his salary and still be able to provide AZ with quality players in return. This is just the type of risky move that KW would go for, and it has enough PR upside to have JR back it up.

I think the biggest obstacle in this deal is convincing RJ to approve a trade to the White Sox. I'd like to see the Sox make a couple of signifficant moves to upgrade the team which would convince RJ that the Sox were a contending team. Signing Freddy and Contreras is a good step, but our infield needs some upgrading.I actually think that Garland is just the type of player teams like. He's solid, if not spectacular, young enough to possibly have significant improvement ahead of him, is a workhorse who's almost never injured, and at only $3.4M, relatively cheap. Plus, teams are always looking for pitching. If you look around, he'd be at least a #4 starter on most teams.

Getting RJ to agree to come to the Sox might be a sticking point, but as has been pointed out here many times, it depends on his other options. I'm sure there are teams he'd rather go to, but if none of them put together a package acceptable to the D-backs, he might not have a better choice. I agree that significant upgrades might make the Sox more attractive, and I'd add a solid bullpen as the most significant factor. If I was in RJ's place, a solid bullpen that can protect me would be the #1 factor. The Sox bullpen, while not nearly as bad as many here like to think, still isn't better than average. One more solid reliever would make it a lot more attractive.

wdelaney72
11-24-2004, 09:55 AM
I actually think that Garland is just the type of player teams like. He's solid, if not spectacular, young enough to possibly have significant improvement ahead of him, is a workhorse who's almost never injured, and at only $3.4M, relatively cheap. Plus, teams are always looking for pitching. If you look around, he'd be at least a #4 starter on most teams.

Getting RJ to agree to come to the Sox might be a sticking point, but as has been pointed out here many times, it depends on his other options. I'm sure there are teams he'd rather go to, but if none of them put together a package acceptable to the D-backs, he might not have a better choice. I agree that significant upgrades might make the Sox more attractive, and I'd add a solid bullpen as the most significant factor. If I was in RJ's place, a solid bullpen that can protect me would be the #1 factor. The Sox bullpen, while not nearly as bad as many here like to think, still isn't better than average. One more solid reliever would make it a lot more attractive.
I think our bullpen gets a bad rap. Last year it was bad becuase of two people - Koch and Jackson. They're both gone. Cotts and Adkins had a couple of rough outing typical for young pitchers, but overall they pitched very well, especially towards the end. Marte was bad last year, but we can just keep him on a short leash. If our SP do their job, we have left-handed specialists in Cotts and Marte (although Cotts may very likely be involved in the RJ deal), a quality setup guy in Pollitte, and Shingo to close. Looking across the rest of MLB, that's not a bad bullpen. If Marte removes his head from his posterior and gets back to form, we're that much stronger.

I think having a quality catcher who RJ would feel comfortable with would help more than upgrading our bullpen, but beefing up the bullpen certainly wouldn't hurt.

I agree, as it comes down to the wire, and RJ has to seriously start looking at another crappy year in the desert, the White Sox will definitely look more appealing.

Ol' No. 2
11-24-2004, 10:06 AM
I think our bullpen gets a bad rap. Last year it was bad becuase of two people - Koch and Jackson. They're both gone. Cotts and Adkins had a couple of rough outing typical for young pitchers, but overall they pitched very well, especially towards the end. Marte was bad last year, but we can just keep him on a short leash. If our SP do their job, we have left-handed specialists in Cotts and Marte (although Cotts may very likely be involved in the RJ deal), a quality setup guy in Pollitte, and Shingo to close. Looking across the rest of MLB, that's not a bad bullpen. If Marte removes his head from his posterior and gets back to form, we're that much stronger.

I think having a quality catcher who RJ would feel comfortable with would help more than upgrading our bullpen, but beefing up the bullpen certainly wouldn't hurt.

I agree, as it comes down to the wire, and RJ has to seriously start looking at another crappy year in the desert, the White Sox will definitely look more appealing.I agree the bullpen wasn't as bad as a lot of people think. They were more inconsistant than bad, which is not unexpected with young players. They need a solid veteran to stabilize things. A Steve Kline or Tom Gordon caliber guy.

Don't count out the Yankees. They're dangling Vazquez and cash to try to entice a third team to join in with a package of young players. The D-backs need bodies, and lots of them. They gave up a lot to the Brewers last year to get Sexson, and they need to replenish. The Cards are offering three young pitchers, so they could be pretty attractive, too. I get the feeling Konerko+Garland isn't going to be enough.

jabrch
11-24-2004, 10:09 AM
Either way...

RJ, Pavano, Clement, whomever...

It seems the franchise intends on going out to add more pitching. That's a good thing in my book. The bitchers can complain all they want about it, but it seems KW is intent on adding one more front to middle rotation pitcher and putting us in a position where at least you can discuss the White Sox as having one of the better rotations in the AL.

I know our owner is cheap and our GM is stupid, but I don't think everything looks as bad as the Striaghtjacket Boys and the Negative Nancys would like us to believe. Now we aren't a top 5 overall team - and not a WS favorite, but it looks like this is going to be a competitive team.

Lip Man 1
11-24-2004, 01:00 PM
Certainly competitive....if you think having another 83 win season in a weak division is 'above average.'

Competitive for a pennant? That's a horse of a different color isn't it?

Lip

TheBull19
11-24-2004, 03:30 PM
I actually think that Garland is just the type of player teams like. He's solid, if not spectacular, young enough to possibly have significant improvement ahead of him, is a workhorse who's almost never injured, and at only $3.4M, relatively cheap. Plus, teams are always looking for pitching. If you look around, he'd be at least a #4 starter on most teams.


And he'd be the #2 on the D'backs.