Can a DFA get more than min from new team without impacting the amounts the Mets will pay?

No.

1. The Duke Posted: May 13, 2022 at 01:31 PM (#6076559)
Can a DFA get more than min from new team without impacting the amounts the Mets will pay?
2. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: May 13, 2022 at 01:43 PM (#6076563)
No.

I was always conflicted about that rule. It seems unfair that one team can say they don't want you anymore and that you're not allowed to go out and get whatever anyone else is willing to pay you. But I assume this is to prevent unhappy players from tanking, getting released, and then getting double salary by signing with the team of their choice. Is that it?

It seems very unfair to me, and also surprising that these players sign on to essentially work for free.

I got a parachute five years ago where I'd get 8 months full pay - but only until I got a new gig. then, nothing more.

so each week I didn't take a job, I got another check.

I realized immediately that I could:
- get a job for barely more money, and thus work for peanuts, in effect.
- get a job for the same money, and thus work for free.
- get a job for less money, and thus I would be paying to work.

In unrelated news, after 8 months of slumber, I immediately landed a new job (at higher pay). Weird how that worked out...

It seems very unfair to me, and also surprising that these players sign on to essentially work for free.

Except he's not working for free. He's working for the original ~$20 million he signed for. He can choose to NOT work and get the $20 million, or he can choose to work for someone else and get the $20 million, but there's no "free" involved. He's getting paid what he negotiated. That doesn't seem unfair to me at all.

It seems unfair that one team can say they don't want you anymore and that you're not allowed to go out and get whatever anyone else is willing to pay you.

He is allowed to do that. He could reach agreement with the Mets to tear up the contract. Right?

...and also surprising that these players sign on to essentially work for free.

It is somewhat surprising for someone at an advanced age. But then again, even someone as old Pujols got himself a couple of million payday by choosing to play "for free" last year instead of walking away.

Can a DFA get more than min from new team without impacting the amounts the Mets will pay?

I suppose a team could offer more than what the Mets were paying, essentially tearing up the old contract to sign a new deal, although maybe it’d have to be a multi-year deal to pass muster with MLB. So, realistically, no way.

I suspect it was a fight the owners decided wasn't worth fighting. A team position of "we'll keep paying him if he accepts the assignment but not if he chooses to leave" seems "fair." But obviously that would give the team leverage, forcing Cano to play in A-ball for 2 years or walk away from the cash. So a compromise -- player gets paid but can't be paid more, but can't be forced to stay in the organization while sometimes avoiding the charade of the refused assignment. I am kinda surprised the union has never gotten the 10 days shortened -- DFA him, put him on waivers, clears waivers in 2 days, release him.

I find it odd that all these weird transactions still exist. Teams purchasing contracts of players already under contract with the team ... options ... rule 5 ... minor-league free agency ... designated for assignment. I know they all still serve a purpose but seem much more convoluted than necessary.

As to the move itself ... the Padres' main holes at the moment are in CF and RF which Cano doesn't help. Not surprisingly that also means they've had a big hole at DH where Voit has been terrible. But he finally hit a couple of HRs (his first of the year) against the Cubs so maybe he's getting on track. (He added nearly 200 points of OPS in one game -- a reminder that it's still crazy early in the season.) The Padres would almost certainly be better off trotting Voit out there nearly every day but may Cano can help a couple of days a week (one day off for Voit, one day off for Hosmer). And at the moment there are enough gaping holes in the Padres' lineup, I suppose they'll have some PH opportunities. Still, it's hard to see how a roster could carry both Cano and Voit.

Hosmer by the way is continuing his magical Olerudian season at 367/434/550 ... a reminder it's still crazy early.

Even if the owners wish it weren't true, baseball players, since they have guaranteed contracts, are essentially ALWAYS playing for the next contract, not the current one and are ALWAYS playing for free. Hence it makes perfect sense that Cano would "play for free" since he already would have been even if the Mets were still playing him. The only reason Cano might want to play this year is to prove that he can still play, and hence perhaps get another contract in the future.

Salaries aren't guaranteed unless the player makes a good faith effort. If Cano refused to play for the Mets, he wouldn't get paid. (see Operation Shutdown) Injured players have no choice but to undertake team-mandated surgeries/rehab if they still want to be paid. (See Gil Meche who had no objection but decided to forego his last year of salary rather than undertake a surely pointless rehab.)

And once he signed that deal with Seattle, Cano knew there was no "next contract" to play for at age 41 ... much less that what's motiated him the last NINE seasons was some hypothetical contract 10 years later.

I am kinda surprised the union has never gotten the 10 days shortened -- DFA him, put him on waivers, clears waivers in 2 days, release him.

DFA period was shortened to 7 days a few years ago.

Official now per ESPN, Lamet optioned.

#14: Thanks, I didn't know that.

The Padres have a decent chance at postseason shares this year, so Cano could win some of that money. It is peanuts compared to his base contract, but certainly something to play for.

And in some of these situations there might be playing-time incentives (I can't find the details of Cano's contract because he's been between teams, so not sure about him specifically).

Though I don't know how that works. If a guy getting paid mostly by his previous team has playing-time incentives, which team pays them? Could the Padres cost the Mets money just by writing Cano into the lineup? That would be amusing if also probably fairly trivial in the scheme of things.

Salaries aren't guaranteed unless the player makes a good faith effort. If Cano refused to play for the Mets, he wouldn't get paid. (see Operation Shutdown)

Not the best example because he got paid!

#15. Sad. Briefly so good, but after multiple injuries he can't get a quality pitch anywhere near the strike zone.

I was sort of hoping he might be the next Steve Ontiveros. Generally pretty good those few periods when he wasn't on the DL.

It seems unfair that one team can say they don't want you anymore and that you're not allowed to go out and get whatever anyone else is willing to pay you. But I assume this is to prevent unhappy players from tanking, getting released, and then getting double salary by signing with the team of their choice. Is that it?

No.

He is allowed to do that. He could reach agreement with the Mets to tear up the contract. Right?

Why would he? He agreed to a contract. He's getting paid. He didn't have to accept the offer from the Padres, and he still would have gotten paid. The Padres pay him the pro rated minimum, and the Mets subtract that from what they owe him. It's a win-win-win.

#17: teach me to trust my memory

Let me ask the question a different way. If both the Padres and Giants wanted to sign him - can he bid out his services to the highest offer or does he have to take league minimum and just choose which team he would prefer to play for ?

If it's the former my next question is as follows: if the Mets owe him $20 million and the minimum is 500k, then the Mets owe $19.5 million under normal circumstances. If the giants won the bidding war and pay him $2 million, do the Mets owe $18 million or $19.5 million ?

#21 It's a hypothetical that can't really arise in that when you DFA a player you have time to make a deal. There basically "can't" be two teams with meaningful interest in a player being released.

But the way it would work is that the Mets would be on the hook for the contract less the minimum and the extra money would be treated as a signing bonus. And the commissioner's office might veto the deal as an unauthorized bonus.

OK, I found Cano's contract details again. He can make a $50K bonus if he is named to the All-Star Team. He has his work cut out for him, but it's worth a try; you make 0% of the All-Star Teams in years you sit out, as the saying goes.

if the Mets owe him $20 million and the minimum is 500k, then the Mets owe $19.5 million under normal circumstances. If the giants won the bidding war and pay him $2 million, do the Mets owe $18 million or $19.5 million ?

The Mets owe him $18 million. Which is why that would never happen. Cano gets $20M no matter who pays him so there's no point in the Giants offering him $2 million. Means literally nothing to Cano and the Giants would be out an extra $1.5 million.

If the Giants offered him $21 million then the Mets would be off the hook and Cano would get $21 million. But if the Giants wanted him that bad, they would have claimed him.

OK, I found Cano's contract details again. He can make a $50K bonus if he is named to the All-Star Team. He has his work cut out for him, but it's worth a try; you make 0% of the All-Star Teams in years you sit out, as the saying goes.

I seem to recall that incentives turn into guarantees if the player is released. But that might not be true since there are incentives like MVP finishes and I can't imagine those would be guaranteed. Not sure how incentives work here.

EDIT: Maybe I'm thinking of options?

Yeah I thought I recalled that too but it wouldn't really make any sense for a team to have to keep a player (and not play him) to avoid him hitting incentive clauses.